KnightErrantJR's page

master arminas wrote:

But Stream, poverty sucks! LOL I wasn't a member then, but I read some of the old threads. Good God ya'll!

Master Arminas

I forgot that quote. I love it. (Side point, I was on SKR's side on that discussion, I'm fine with some options being weak, so long as they remain options and can be ignored.)

I hated that quote. I found it dismissive of anyone that wanted to actually have a viable option for gearless monks, monks that actually lived up to their flavor.

The sour scene around VoP cannot be laid solely at the feet of those that hated how it turned out. Did some of those that disliked the VoP post uncivilly? Yes.

But many more had legitimate griefs with it and communicated that politely.

What they got in return was snark and derision, both from one developer and those that apparently felt that anyone who was unhappy with the VoP must have been a powergamer, certainly not people that actually wanted monks to feel like monks and actually have a chance at being a full-fledged party member in a standard AP.

Wasn't exactly a nice feeling around that time.

To attribute to the developers the intention to deceive is a recipe for unhappiness. I have a friend who right now is in a very agitated state because he was deceived by one particular person. Since then, he attributes to the actions of all his friends an intention to deceive, exploit, and pursue selfish goals to the exclusion of consideration for his feelings. He has even gone as far as to say that his best friend inviting him on an expensive vacation (paid for in full) is "inconsiderate" because he is single, and his best friend is in a couple, and because he is not a beach person, and the vacation is on a tropical island. This is, of course, a twisted way to look at the world.

To ascribe to the developers a malicious intention, one which I see no evidence for, is only going to make you a less happy person. The developers may have made mistakes, made some classes unbalanced against others, and may even be defensive about statements that contradict each other. But that does not mean they are intentionally trying to deceive us, or have any other malicious intentions.

Alignment, Size, and Type: While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.

I really rather agree with the OP.

If someone is wrong, show them the links and explain why you believe their interpretation is incorrect.

Whether they are using cheese or whatever is completely irrelevant. You can point out that you don't think its RAI or that its not a good idea to do something without resorting to insults. And yes, saying someone is trying a cheesy build or that they are gamist or all that other crap is just a way of trying to say you are better than they are. Cheesing/cheating/powergaming/munchking. they are all ways people use to say "you are playing the game wrong". And thats just not what this game is about.

Instruct someone who you think is not using RAW. Show them the RAW. Tell them what you think the RAI is. Explain why. Show them the possible pitfalls in the game with how they think the game works.

Increase knowledge. End name calling. Helping someone understand the total ramifications about what they are doing and/or suggesting is going to advance your cause far more than flinging names at them.

-S

Gotta concur with dialing back the tone. Kicking up bad moods in fans and devs alike just exacerbates the situation, and if you keep exacerbating you'll go blind.

What's wrong with Bloodcrow Strike? I don't see anything wrong, minus the missing components which SKR had answered.

Like the guys upthread said, it's evil for no real reason. Add that to the fact that there are now [Evil] Qinggong powers and no [Good] ones for those that want to play supergood monks and Blood Crow Strike is also the qinggong power that's closest to the iconic Hadoken. That's something a lot of monk fans would like to have, but right now it's arbitrarily locked away from heroic monks by the [Evil] descriptor.

Either shaving off the [Evil] tag that doesn't really have any reason to be there or adding non-evil equivalents or analogues would fix that problem, though the former is probably a much easier and quicker fix.

But Mikaze, being poor sucks!

>:(

This may not be the popular opinion BUT...

I think if you have a love for the game, you are a member of the community and should post when you want. If you recognize the importance of the OP campaign to the overall game system and want it to do well, you should post on those forums as well.

I'll restate my previous recommendation:

I think everyone needs to take a step back from the boards when they get the urge to post something right away. When you respond to someone, pretend like they are your best friend that happened to post on the same board. Odds are, your posting style might change, and probably for the better.

I think the point, which seems to have been lost among the clutter, is that it wasn't any of the many changes that drove these players from our ranks. It was the impression of a very bad attitude from the player-base (represented mainly by these boards).

We can disagree about things all we want, we don't need to be jerks about it.

It's been a long time since I looked at that thread, and whether people intended to or not it came off as full of vitriol and malice.

Except for retraining right now is not a huge deal.

If you, as most Druid's who choose Animal Campanion for their Nature's Bond should, take several ranks in handle animal, your animal gets the bonus tricks for free, and you can train up to your ranks in handle animal per session. We just had a ranger able to fully train their animal companion in one session (and would have had one trick to spare if their animal could have learned that trick). He did it taking 10 no less.

Most != all though Andrew. If we're talking about an 'old' Druid who skimped on those ranks (or a cleric with the animal domain) they might not have enough for 'instant retraining'.

Again, I understand corner cases make bad law, just playing Celestial's Advocate here for the 'veteran' player. I'm also not talking about "Dudley Druid, brand new first level Druid, and his companion monkey-with-hammer." I'm talking about Charlie Cleric, who's 7th level, several sheets under his belt and Ape-with-Hammers as his sidekick. Dudley isn't going to care about the change in reality, he wasn't there for it. Charlie however will.

The thing that drives me nuts (in the case of the changes of heart on intelligent animal companions and weapon-using monks) is when people say "it's always worked that way" even when there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Sigh...

Spells with extra oomph for being cast as good spells are a great idea, as are a lot of the others that came up in this thread. I've got a lot of thinking to do...

Say it ain't so, Owen.

I really don't like the idea of a "good" version of hellfire magic. Since most games feature good-aligned characters anyway (unless you're running an evil campaign, or have one of those "I'm neutral to avoid alignment-based effects" players), this is essentially giving the vast majority of all PCs a free bonus when using such magic. Likewise, what's the thematic opposite? That evil characters really want to use these spells, but have to grapple with going to the good side? That seems a bit silly to me.

The whole thing also smacks of unnecessary parallelism. Must everything have an opposite equivalent?

By itself, the idea of "good-based magic" isn't a bad one, but make it function differently. Make it the first example of creature-based magic, and have it be the spells that only angels can use (followed by some mechanics that let mortals spellcasters access that same power).

I am actually thinking of giving up PFS altogether after I'm done volunteering at a local convention in April.

Too much work, too little reward (which for me would be that I could play the characters I enjoy playing more than once a year, and it looks like one will be forever stuck waiting to play Part IV of the Eyes of the Ten series).

Still not as bothersome as what I perceive to be petitioning for the over-management of the campaign by a select group here on the boards. I am already having a difficult time having fun with PFS right now; I don't need a steady stream of complaints about how what I enjoy about the campaign is often wrong and needs to be changed. I understand that all of us want what we want, but it seems that too many of "us" want to actively interfere with how others see the campaign.

I would assume some of said people comment in the hopes of things being changed so that they would actually want to play the game.

I personally have a run a few games but I don't believe I will bother to again. To me it limits my options as a dm and options for my players as well players. If we were people who went to conventions to play RPG games then I would be more motivated but I am not.

There are roughly 170 working hours in any given month. Short of imposing inhumane working conditions, it does not seem possible to devote 100+ hours to more than 1 product per month. By limiting our development to 1 product per month, we are able to spend 100+ hours playing, analyzing and refining each individual product many, many times.

All I will say is the market will bare what the market can bare and that will be the final judge of what a quality product is. If it takes a second to do or 5 years, the market will determine which is the better product. There really is nothing fairer than that.

Also... pugwampis...

It's no longer cool to give advice to D&D players, especially DMs. They all know what's better for their own games better than anyone else, even when they don't, and any attempt to give general pointers that could possibly run counter to how an experienced DM already does things is sure to be met with a, "How dare you try and tell me how to run my own game!"

As much as we all enjoy getting together and warming our hands over a nice flame war, I'd like to request that people please play nice and attempt to leave real-world concerns like popular religions and the military out of it as much as possible. Those issues are best left to threads in the off-topic section (or better yet, somewhere else entirely, preferably in person where you can look the person you're debating with in the eye).

I think required alignments is an important discussion, but I suspect this will probably be the only warning, seeing as the thread's already been Godwined. :-P

nosig wrote:

so why did you bring up Paladin?

It is an analogous situation to the OP's post. There is a lot of RAI on the subject and at least some of it is either contradictory, unclear, or even absent completely. In these cases, it is left up to the GM to adjudicate how the player-characters interact with the multiverse. If a paladin cannot cherry-pick the parts of dogma they like, then why would a Dhampir Pharasmin Cleric get to? Interpretation of dogma is a difficult thing to do. People, countries, whole continents have been warring over dogmatic interpretations for millenia.

Per the RAW, clerics and inquisitors are the only ones who must be within one step of their deity. That requirement is not expected of any other class. Yet the expectation exists for paladins. Is that not RAI or perhaps a GM adjudication?

What is lacking here is a general application of lack of written text does not equate to legal. Pharamin dogma does indicate specifically what IS illegal in the eyes of the deity, but those are "man's" interpretations. So it is reasonable to think that the deity could extent that to more gray areas such as what the OP suggests...or not. In either case, IMO, it is still in the arena of GM discretion.

WE need to respect both sides. As I have always said, if you choose to build a character that is clearly living in the "gray realm" of rules interpretations or religious dogma, you have to expect occasions where the GM will not rule as you want. If you always want your character to function as intended, avoid these "fringe" cases.

I do not feel this is a fringe case.

from Separatist (Archetype) (the first two lines in fact)
"A radical cleric, unsatisfied with the orthodoxy of her
deity’s teachings, forges her own path of defiant divine
expression. Though most members of her faith would call
her a separatist or heretic, she continues to receive spells
from her deity."

Andrew appears to be stating that he objects to the posters character concept because it goes against his view of the orthodoxy of Pharasmas teachings. Which seems to me to be the point of the archetype.

If Andrew were to be saying "your character only thinks he is getting his spells from Pharasma, when in reality you are getting them from some other hidden diety, who is decievingy you for some unknown reason." I would be fine with that.

Instead he appears to be saying "not at my table". and is unable or unwilling to point to a rule against it. That's what has been keeping me up late tonight.

His arguement is that this is against the orthodox teachings of Pharasma (in a word heretical) .... and he will not allow it at his table. No rule except DM fiat.

My own take on it would be that dhampirs, being born from a mortal parent, are living creatures. They have an affinity for undeath, but that does not make them undead themselves.

If a player came to my table, and wanted to be a dhampir Pharasmin cleric with the Undeath domain, I would allow it on a caveat. He uses it to understand and .destroy. the undead. He does not get undead-creating spells, but since the domain does more than that, hey, have fun, kid! I hope your roleplaying skills make it fun for everyone.

Recently, players in a previous group learned that if I (as a GM) say "are you sure?" the answer should very, very probably be "no".

That's funny, because I've learned when a GM asks "are you sure?", half the time he's just screwing with the player.

... For the Death’s Kiss power alone, I’d say Pharasma wouldn’t grant this power....

3)you can’t seriously be considering that the Halfling cavalier is even a desperate analogy. It isn’t analogous at all. Personal bias based on simply preference has no bearing and is not equivocal to what actual cannon says about something else.

Personal bias is completely the point. I just admit that mine has no legitimate place behind a GM screen. I may assume that every player of a halfling cavalier plays one just to use a medium sized mount underground/indoors, no matter what background story or roleplaying reasons they insist they have... But it's 100% legal and I'd sincerly give someone the benefit of the doubt before saying "not at my table, munchkin!" at a home game. And I'd be completely in the wrong to ban it at a PFS table.

To say that the Undeath Domain is completely verboten based on your interpretation of Pharasma's edicts/taboos/dogma is perfectly acceptable... for an in-character portrayal of an NPC. For a referee, it's simply personal bias and unbecoming of someone in the position of trusted authority.

Again, for what reason would Pharasma never ever grant that domain? All I'm hearing is "Because *I* say so." What's the logic? We all agree that Undead creatures are anathema to her and her faith. So what? What's that have to do with the Undead domain, besides the name? Is that all this is about, thinking Pharasma not only hates the Undead, but anything with 'Undead' in the name? A GM worthy of the responsibility should be able to look beyond that incredibly simple view.

Sure, it's obvious that she wouldn't grant it normally. That's why it's not a regularly available Subdomain, requiring the archetype to take. But as a neutral deity, (neutral) clerics of hers can already freely channel negative energy. If you're basing your opinions on that use of negative energy is an abomination against her faith, you're just simply mistaken. So what's the big unforgivable difference with the Undead domain? I say there is none.

Kama Sutra.

Has our gaming become so influenced by video games, that a player would quit a character just based on game mechanics? Are we completely split as a gaming community? I never thought mechanics were more important than personality and story.

Have a look at what one of my players has said about his PFRPG L13 wizard. Has ROLL-playing replaced ROLE-playing for good?

Has Pax' life become so lacking in relevant examples, that he has to really work this hard, to twist any and every passing comment he hears into a false dichotomy between 'true ROLE-players' and 'dirty ROLL-players'?

The door is "closed," James, because we really, literally, do not have the time to make a post transcribing every discussion that takes place within the Paizo offices. If the amount of transparency we do provide (which I think is a lot, compared to just about every other company out there, in just about any field) isn't enough for you, then maybe Pathfinder Society isn't the right campaign for you to participate in.

Gee, thanks.

Whenever a rule is ad hoc, I'll question it. I'm sorry that doesn't suit you. You needn't have bothered to reply, time being an issue after all.. I gave up asking it from you.

From one VC's response it sounded very much like many of these things were discussed on boards that were simply closed to the public. I'm sorry you see value in having those and leaving the reasons for 'cause we said so'. In my mind such discussions should be in the open because there is no reason for them not to be. Now discussions of plot points, story arcs and the like there can be reason for closed doors.. but not in discussing a campaign rule like this.

When a DM says this kind of thing it erodes how you think of them, and a campaign coordinator takes the role of DM in organized play. And when the DM offers you the door, you take it because what's the point of staying after that?

-James

The Penny-Arcade guys don't hate 4e (and we don't have to either - love & peace for all!), they're just looking to change things up a bit. No RPG rules set is perfect. But PFRPG is different from 4e in a lot of ways, and you shouldn't really read more into it than that.

Almost every MMO out there currently caters to that style. I'd still rather have some sort of penalty for death.

Do you know why that is? Because it sells.

Let's face it: It would be cool to have a game that was incredibly realistic in its portrayal of death. And yeah, an action title with very limited character progression might be able to pull it off.

But this is a risk for Paizo, and they need their first video game out of the gate to sell well. If they want it to sell well, they need the game to be fun and engaging, not realistic.

There is a time and a place for innovation. Right now we should worry about making the game fun.

And that's not to say that there isn't room for both. There are several modern video games that are fun and innovative. They're the game changers... the movers and shakers... the games that change the face of the entire industry.

But they're almost ALWAYS big budget titles. If Paizo has the funds to procure a huge development team for the project, I might think it was worth taking some risks. I just don't see it.

*On another note: Insuring items. What does this accomplish? Do I have to go get every new piece of gear I find insured? And, if every player is just going to do it anyways, why not just remove it from the game? It's an extra layer of coding that, essentially, contributes nothing to the game.

I'm drunk and will pursue this in the morning.

But for now: Life is fun and rewarding because it's difficult, and at times, boring. Sex with a prostitute is instant gratification for money. I'm not here for that.

I want an alternate experience in a fantasy world. Not to have sex with a prostitute on my computer.

Enormous spaces exist because that is how geography works. Horses do not despawn because that is impossible. Cattle farming is a necessity in order to farm cattle.

Just because I want my car to become a statue in my pocket, my wife to house a 'on/off' switch and my job to be something that I can decide as to whether I will turn up to or not; such a scenario would strip life of its ultimate fruits, as would it strip my gaming of its fruits. Stop trying to ruin my fruits. I've had carrot on a stick and I don't want it anymore.

Well, my friend, look no further! Such a game exists, and it's as easy as opening your front door!

Hi, I'm Davor. You may remember me from such threads as "Intensify Magic Missile" and "AM BARBARIAN build", and I'm here to tell you about a new game that's just hit the market!

Are you tired of instant gratification? Is all that fast-paced, high energy action getting you down? Do you need a break from all that wealth and fame? Then boy, do I have the game for you!

It's called "Real Life"! That's right, "Real Life"! Why spend all those hours slaying monsters when you could be doing your taxes! Who needs epic weapons of mass destruction and busty waitresses when you could enjoy mopping up the urine stain of your very own, fully interactive house cat!

Now, you may be asking, "Davor, this sounds amazing! How can I get involved?" The answer will astound you. Simply turn off the computer, stand up, and turn around, and suddenly, you'll be in a world unlike any digital one you've experienced, complete with car payments, data entry, AND EVEN WASTE RECYCLING! Even better, you can get your friends involved too!

It's the ultimate interactive experience, and for a meager cost of a full years wages, you too can enjoy the epic thrill ride that is "Real Life!"

WARNING! "Real Life" may not actually be exciting and epic, and is likely filled with pointless grinds and mindless chores that contribute in no way to your character growth or development. Some side effects may include boredom, depression, and general lack of self worth. For treatment, visit your local game retailer.

Lately I've been wondering how well Dark Dungeons could translate into a late 60's/early 70's Hammer horror flick. With Ingrid Pitt as the DM.

Kinda sorta want.

hey I got a question -- if 11 people in millions is enough to condemn D&D how many have to die for less than half a million to condemn something? Because I remember this preacher from not so long ago who might be in trouble now.

Chick probably would have given it the good old college try if that guy were Catholic.

The worst part about reading an article like this for me, as a Christian myself, is seeing the disgrace and discredit such rumblings bring to the Kingdom itself. It's like the guy who took out all the billboards last spring announcing the end of the world; makes the Christian community out to be a collection of religious nut bags.

As has been pointed out in rebuttal to the article, if you take a sample size of millions of gamers, you're bound to find a few wackos. Just like when you take a sample size of millions of Christians...

Hama wrote:

Nope, you're quite right. And he is responsible for the travesty that is star wars d20 revised edition and vitality and wound points among other things. His prior work with TSR and early wotc nonwithstanding, he made a great many f******s. Too many.

@ Scott Betts...resist the urge to fight for 4th edition. There are people who dislike it, and people who hate it. There always will be.

The behavior being exhibited by a lot of Paizo fans (or, perhaps more accurately, anti-WotC folk) in this thread is disgusting. I mean really, really disgusting.

Be better.

Scott is right. Can people please conjure a single ounce of empathy?

I've definitely railed against Bill S.'s designs in the past, sometimes vocally. But hating on him now is petty and unnecessary. If these are the thoughts you are having, so be it, but must you share them with everyone?

Of course you must. So, I guess I'll just join Scott in declaring "shame on you." I hope nobody ever does something to you like that, but if it happens, may the irony not go unnoticed.

I think it's immensely unfair to blame Bill Slavicsek for many of these things that were out of his hands. Sure you can disagree with some of the design choices on 4e, but much of the problem with the edition change was due to Hasbro being a big corporation. And someone like Bill was not able to change that.

I'm sorry to see him and others laid off/forced to retire/whatever from WotC. It's a very difficult industry to find paying work in, and I wish them the best. If any of them can land on their feet at Paizo, I'll be more than happy to support them.

Do we really need this to be about 4e?

Even if, in some way, the MMO-like aspects of 4e are on-topic... this is the thread of inclusion.

People should be every bit as open-minded about 4e as they are about MMO terminology.

Let's grow up a bit, and stop deriding games because of an imagined opposition to the product we chose to buy. That opposition is in your head, children! Paizo and DnD are friends.

Can't we be friendly community instead of reverting to tribal warfare at every imagined slight?

Truth be told this isn't the thread for the optimization conversation. I see how it's related, but this is the thread about positivity and fostering a welcoming community for all styles of play.

If you want to rail for or against charOp, there's a thread for that.

If you want to deride other styles of play (with varying degrees of commitment) there are threads for that.

In this thread, we like people and we don't mind them enjoying themselves in the fashion that works for them, so long as they reciprocate the sentiment.

I find it pretty funny when people complain that there isn't enough new blood entering the hobby. I also find it funny when people complain about the new blood entering the hobby.

I do my best to introduce new people to the hobby every time I start up a new game, and for the last couple years I have been pretty successful. Last summer I introduced a group of high school kids to 3.5, and last Monday I ran their first Pathfinder game. My wife wanted to play for the first time and I found two new collage kids to play with us, both of them girls.

In both cases, there were WOW players. They do not expect table top RPGs to be anything like WOW though. It doesn't take long to explain everything to them, but I do find that from time to time I need to stop and answer questions about basic things in the game.

My experience tells me that a person needs about year of once a week games to learn enough of the rules to be fully competent with the game. I have players who have been playing for about six months who still ask about their to hit bonuses, ability modifiers, and initiative from time to time.

Counterpoint to the old man griping in this other thread.

If another hobby with its own culture and terminology seems massively predisposed to buy into pen and paper RPGs because they're interested in the heritage of fantasy gaming — I say welcome them with open arms.

They may "tank" their "toons" and "dps" all the way up Pathfinder's "instance" as far as I'm concerned. Any new blood is good new blood, and I hate to think we are so grognardy about it that we'd make people feel unwelcome. Grognards, it may bother you, but if you just smile and nod and show them how it's done, they'll fall in line eventually!

Seriously, just be a smart, happy, welcoming community. Then girls might want to play with us.

Since the other thread is oppressively opinionated on this matter, I thought we could use a thread for people who don't mind, or people who came to PF/D&D from MMOs, or people who have learned about one game from playing the other.

This concludes the most recent chapter of Evil Lincoln's Just Calm the $*&# Down, People, a 700 part series.

The PF rulebook is ponderous and hard to navigate, and could use a substantial re-write without actually changing the rules themselves.

This. A fact underscored by heavy use this past weekend.

I believe a big part of the problem came from fusing the PHB and DMG.

There is a fundamental problem with Pathfinder. A situation created with 3.0, grafted into 3.5 and again grafted into the PFRPG. This problem spurred the creation of 3.5, 4th Ed, and PFRPG; yet none of those thing fully addressed the problem. For the last 10 years we have struggled with the problem, fixing the symptoms but never the core sickness. In this way I think that 4th edition, PFRPG and 3.5 are all the same.

What am I talking about? I'll get to that in a moment; more important is where I am coming from.

• I first played D&D after my Dad (an AD&D vet), gave me the 3.0 handbook when I was in sixth grade. Saying something like "maybe you'll get something out of this" (he wasn't a fan), this was sometime in 1999. For such a broken game and unfun, we sure played the crap out of it...
  
• Around the time 3.5 was being discussed (I still have my Dragon magazines discussing the development actually...), I stopped playing D&D for a bit due to a move(moved to a new area, didn't have the allowance for new books; not that I couldn't enjoy my current books). I returned to the scene towards the end of the 3.5 cycle in late 05, early 06. For such a broken and unfun game, we sure played the crap out of it (didn't seem all that different from 3.0 to us).
  
• Around this time I started dabbling with WW's games (I was even a cammy for a bit), and other rpgs (mainly sticking to wotc and ww though). We struggled with d20 future and shadowrun, having loads fun (but feeling the stuff was 'unsustainable' for our playstyles).
  
• Then 4th edition rolled around. Me and my group groaned at every new announcement, and were in general dismay. But something strange happened for me, I got an early leaked copy of the books... and LOVED them. My high school group didn't share my enthusiasm, but it ended up not mattering a whole lot; I was off to college. It took no time at all to find a 4th ed group and get to playing. For such a bleached and unfun game, we sure played the crap out of it.
  
• Around the PHB 2 though (more like a few months after, honestly) I was started to feel bored with 4th ed. Conveniently, PFRPG was released shortly after; and we are playing the crap out of it.
  

So what's the problem that all these things tried to address over and over again? It was 3.0's initial rules. Except for 4th edition, the later incarnations were a large bit of copy paste with no fundamental shift in book design and layout. Let go through it case by case.

• 3.0 to 3.5: This is the shift I understand the least (due to my age I assume). To be fair you could hardly call my 6th grade adventures into the tombs of the undead lord 'Tenchum' D&D. We played heavily by rule of cool, and DM fiat. We had tons of fun, but it wasn't truly by the rules. The main shifts were skill changes and the removal of some 'dumb stuff' that was dumb in hindsight.
  
• 3.5 to 4th ed: This I understood a lot more, or at least I understand the marketed hatred of 3E. I don't love the system until I read it. They redid everything with a focus on 'playing the game'. And for a system called "Dungeons and Dragons", it is great for going into dungeons and killing dragons (the best I'd argue).
  
• 4th ed to PFRPG: PFRPG seemed to take that "stimulus pack of fun" that 4th ed had, and injected it into all of the classes. Redid some more rules that were 'dumb' in hindight, and overall did '3.5' to 3.5.
  

But here are some more fine angles on the evolutions.

• 4th to 4th ed PHB2: Rituals seemed to be getting phased out due to non-use. We got more classes that did the same things(roles) in different ways. While interesting at first, I think new player options alone wasn't enough for me. I wanted to see more rules options. (like how MTG releases new mechanics with new releases). Overall book format was the same as 4E core (that is, it was superb).
  
• PFRPG to APG: Paizo taking some creative licence. The core book was meant to be a rehash of 3.5, with updates. APG was meant to be paizo's vision for going forward (less focus on prestige classes, more on archetypes, blah blah blah, you guys know). But you know another big difference in APG and PFRPG? Navigation. Because they were going their own way, they wrote the book from scratch. And it reads GREAT. The 3E book was a mess, thus the copy-paste to 3.5 was a mess, thus the copy-paste to PFRPG was a mess.
  

The rules aren't a mess, the book is a mess. Paizo came leaps and bounds from 3.5, just like 3.5 came leaps and bounds form 3.0. But in navigation, because the team is still rehashing the 3.0 book, navigation can be awkward at times. I understand why they did it, it make sense from a business standpoint; it's reliable.

Many times a session, rules that seem to be half descriped everywhere (having to cross reference the combat chapter, the magic chapter, and the glossary). 4th ed got this right. The rules aren't really more simple, they're just clear.

This gives me two thoughts. If PFRPG 2ED was a rewrite of the same rules but with a ground up re-presentation of the rules, I'd buy it today. The second idea is a project idea. I want to rewrite the book myself if I can't hope for someone else to. Existing projects like d20pfsrd are great for posting the content. But they don't help digest all the rules, they're still copy-pasting from PFRPG. I don't think the rules need a re-do, just a re-write. Take notes from books like 4E's PHB. I am going to start some brainstorming personally, but if others are interested let me know. The idea is to approach it like writing a book from scratch, but describe the existing rules.

Btw, I made an alarmist title on purpose, I know we wont see a 2e for a good while. And to be fair I wouldn't call the idea a new 'edition'.

nervously hits submit

I can't speak for others but I only ever played one game.

The rules or system (except for a few years in the 90s) were never so important to me.

I'm a D&Der.

No interest in trying any other system. (Not that other systems are icky -- I just don't care.)

Better is subjective. I think that other games provide stricter guidelines, but in the end roleplay is about mentality and about buy in from the whole group. Some games force you into that mentality but that doesnt mean its done any better or worse if everyone was ready and willing in the first place.

I will never understand this.

Play the system that works best. D&D will not come alive in anthropormorphic idealized form to thank you for your years of loyalty.

You do not have to play D&D. There are other systems, and many of them are quite nifty!

There's a lot of other fantasy games out there, assuming fantasy is what you want. Keep in mind I haven't played some of these;

FATE I have played and loved, and could probably (easily) be done for a fantasy game. FATE is also enormously a narrative game, however, which might not mesh with what you want out of the game.

FantasyCraft I've not played but I've heard some good about it. It's still D20, but it's not class based. Someone else could probably tell you more.

I do not recommend GURPS. If 3e can be MATH OVERLOAD, GURPS is MATH HEAT DEATH. Also I just sorta personally dislike GURPS which colors my opinion, admittingly.

Savage Worlds owns. It's more of an ~*~ADVENTURE~*~ pulp style of game, where men have chins that could stop a bullet and women wear trousers that are called "trousers" and punch you for calling them "dames." It can be a bit touch and go at times, but overall Savage Worlds is great if you want a two fisted pulp book or comic book style adventure. Potentially better at emulating the books D&D was based off - Conan, Fafnir and the Grey Mouser, that kinda thing - then D&D has ever been.

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying Game is the opposite of Savage Worlds - it's grim and gritty and dark. It's also meant to be not entirely serious. If you want a dark humor game that's directed by Sam Raimi, where everything is really gory and gross and scary and hilarious and your characters' lives only get worse as the game goes on, then WFRP is the game for you.

In all honesty if you don't want robust character creation and robust NPC creation then there's a good chance that 3e truly isn't the game for you.

Here's the catch: that's not a bad thing!

There's a ton of awesome games out there that have nothing to do with 3e/4e. There's a ton of awesome games that have nothing to do with D&D at all!

My question is this: what do you want in your game?

See, if I was going to play a game with little to no adventuring in it that was based entirely on espionage and politics and that sort of thing, I wouldn't play D&D. I'd play a game built for espionage and politics.

That is the biggest flaw in the geisha - it's a class that isn't very good because it's built towards doing things 3.x isn't very good at doing. Pathfinder isn't built towards a skills heavy game, it's built towards an adventure heavy game. And the geisha isn't as good at adventuring.

Pathfinder.

...

What?

Second.

Not because it's bad (it's not), but because what is effectively a fairly minor rehash of an existing system was pretty widely hailed as the tabletop equivalent of the Second Coming.

Pathfinder.

...

What?

FATAL.

Edit: Was answering the thread title, not the OP. Anyway.

As for most-hyped RPG I've seen, have to go with Pathfinder.

Played would be 4E.