|
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Paizo Pathfinder® GameMastery® Planet Stories® Paizo Games | |||||||||||||||||||
| About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An Aside About Marvel Canon That Probably Really Doesn't Belong Here:
Stuff re: Tony and Reed Look, I like Stark, but he's not god. Reed Richards effectively is, and just doesn't know it. Earth X: he imitated Charles Xavier's powers by bending his brain into the proper shape. His son can reshape realities. His grandson has a literally infinite amount of energy at his beck and call. Reed himself can, as has just been mentioned, imitate and thus surpass any superhero he wants just by thinking about it long enough and stretching right. For the record, no Earth X wasn't canon. But all the rules at play in Earth X (with a couple of minor exceptions) are presumed to function in the standard Marvel world. Also: Reed Richards has actual powers, while Tony Stark has a machine that's (for right now) not killing him. Further: Reed is known (for a fact) to be the smartest human being in the world. It's not questioned, it's not questionable. They've done tests and everything. It has been stated as fact that should Reed actually put his mind to it, he could solve such "trivial" things as world hunger, disease, and all the rest. Finally: Reed Richards isn't cool. I don't like him as a person, morally, or as a comic character. He's lazy, has the wrong priorities, bad fashion sense, and some of his "good" decisions are morally questionable (especially in dealing with his wife), he's boring, and the typical use of his power is kind of stupid. Tony on the other hand, is cool, despite his rather terrible character flaws. Just saying "Tony's better" isn't a fact anymore than saying "Wolverine's better", because neither of these are true. Wolverine is certainly more relatable, just as Tony is more relatable, but saying they're "better" simply isn't accurate. Would the iron man suit defeat Reed in a fight? Possibly, depending on how much thought Reed's given it before hand. But not necessarily, especially considering that Reed's effectively killed more than one "all powerful" entity, while Tony... hasn't. He's done some amazing things, but he's not killed "all-powerful" entities, yet. Maybe slept with some, though. Re: Tony v. Magic Users - Tony has never, by himself, outside of possibly seducing something, gone toe-to-toe with a big magic user and won due to tech. He's awesome, but like Spiderman and Wolverine part of what makes him so awesome is his human, limited side and the limits to his abilities. Tony's experienced multiple tech-failures and has failed more often than he's succeeded... but his gambles pay off because he works hard. IF we tried to stat him up in pathfinder: he's a rogue that specializes in creating magical (sentient) constructs who, in turn, each specialize in crafting and synthesizing magical items for him. Voila. Does that cover his schtick? No. But that's because he's not a mage. And Pathfinder, although it does have technology (a supplement I don't have, sadly) doesn't really cover it well in the magic-centered world. Tony is, at best, a rogue who has serious heart problems, but has gained a partial construct template. Here's the thing: we can say "but X can do Y" all we want. And it's true. Our characters don't do the exact things as characters in fiction and literature. Honestly, I don't see that many paladins, wizards, sorcerers, druids, or clerics as the classes, running around in fiction and literature. Cavaliers, sure, Rangers, sure, fighters, sure, barbarians, yes, and rogues, absolutely. I see magic users, but they really aren't capable of the things that wizards, sorcerers, witches, and other full-casters are capable of. Really, no one is, save demigods, because in many ways, it's just too much at high levels. As far as not being able to do what <insert name here> does in <insert title here>? Yeah, that happens. But that's partially what templates are for. Pathfinder is balanced for Pathfinder. It's meant to be evocative and it's meant to get the gist, and that's what it does. You can create anything else you want, you just have to use the tools you want and step beyond RAW. There is no singular game system that has ever been made that can match the amazing game called "imagination", which is what authors use when they create their rules for their world. Instead, we can roughly approximate the gist of what iconic characters are like, balance them for a fair level range, and just let it go beyond that. And that's what this problem is about. I have absolutely no problem with the game as it is. I think it works fine. Does it cover everything? No. Does it need to? No. If I'm going to develop something for my home game that it doesn't quite cover, the nifty thing is I've got this great rules framework to make it with. It doesn't have to be balanced with everything else unless I want it to be. That's the magic of home brew! One thing about high level fighters and good will saves: it's true. I suppose they'll just have to spend one of their very few feats on will-boosting things, or perhaps simply have high levels, and thus have decent saves anyway, or something. (Although, if I recall, doesn't intimidate include torture in its definition and have a modified level check to negate instead of will?) To clarify: I have no problem with a "fighter" having a high will and some good skills. Seriously, you should see some of the gestalt combos I pull out, or creature/character builds I make for fun. But I do have a small problem saying that fighters aren't skilled as they currently stand, and with a base of fighters having high skills and great saves. That's not what they're there to do. They're present to be good at: fighting. Voila, mission accomplished. The preponderance of their "skills" go into: proficiencies, improvements in those proficiencies, specializations in those proficiencies, feats, and the like. If you'd like to trade off a whole slew of feats for some saves and skills, might I recommend: the ranger. If a strong will is what you need: oh, look, a paladin. Both? Gestalt madness abounds! Although really anything and anyone past 15th level is doing pretty stinking astounding things. I mean, wow. 
I will never understand why some people insist that monsters and PC's should follow the same rules. And I will never understand why some people can't understand that. *shrug* 
That's highly convenient. Would we get better pricing on racial abilities if we gave up the idea that all the core races are precisely equal? Dropping this notion of preconceived parity may enable a better balancing of the system as a whole.
EDIT: I'm totally not bashing the lateral-movement concept. I'm just pointing out that it's not a magical (hah) cure-all for the disparity between games and real-life. I like the ideas thrown out, I'm just putting some stuff for thinking.
A look at 3.X/Pathfinder, 4E, board games, and immersion (TL;DR, 3.X/Pathfinder is subjectively a bit more immsersive, 4E is subjectively a bit more gamey):
One of the things Diffan pointed out - the upwards movement instead of lateral - is one of the problems I have with 4E: it completely fails to hide that it's a game. The 3.X/Pathfinder by using very diverse elements such as BAB v. AC, separation of damage reduction from AC, different saves, varying level-growth-sets, etc hides the game in the mechanics. Opposed skill checks, passive skill checks, varying DCs of difficulty, different hit dice, different saves, different skill points, different all sorts of other things, but with a consistent application of those same mechanics allows for a high diversity, but also, especially because all creatures great and small abide by these rules, hides the the fact that you are playing a game. Literally, it's complexity partially (key word, also your mileage may vary) helps mask the fact that a game is taking place and makes it feel less "gamey".
4E, in design philosophy took all that, streamlined it (somewhat) into a "bonus +1/2 level", and, as a result (along with a high differentiation of the rules between monsters, NPCs, and PCs) now looks (and feels) too much like a game (for my tastes). This is, I think, where the accusations of 4E=boardgame come from, as well as comparisons to WoW. First: yes, I know, it's all a game. And that's fine! I like games! But there's a difference between playing monopoly and coming up with a story for it and playing RPGs and coming up with stories for it. Monopoly feels far more "gamey" and, while a story to explain what's happening is certainly possible (and is even the basis for what's occurring!) you are never fully immersed because you never forget the fact that you're really just pushing little pewter or plastic pieces around a board for fake money. Supply "battleship", "clue", or even "candy land" for "monopoly" and you have the same thing. They are all games first, and the story is only a reason to have a themed game. If you took all the fluff out of them, they'd be boring. Who want to win paper by pushing a nondescript piece of plastic around a number of squares with arbitrary rules? No one, because that's boring. BUT, many people would like to win money by moving their character across (and purchasing) important pieces of land. The story is there, and part of the game. The thing is, story is only a (vague) dressing for the (very arbitrary) game. That's something that (most) everyone acknowledges (consciously or not). Something like, say, Catchphrase doesn't even pretend to be anything other than a game nor does it attempt to dress it up with a story, so you're always aware you're playing a game. Clue, on the other hand, pretends to be a murder story (whose "villain" that changes repeatedly) but it is, in fact, a game, and always feels like it, despite its story-dressing (still a good game, and a fantastic movie, though!). RPGs originally came out of tactical war gaming, but have become (and now are) Role Playing Games, and are there to facilitate a story (aka the "role") via a system of rules (aka the "game"). Both are important, but some amount of balance is necessary. Technically, one could even point at monopoly and clue and claim "aha, you are playing a role in those games, ergo, they are role playing games", but I think that most people understand that those are first and foremost games and the story is only a nice bit of fluff to make the games palatable. RPGs are a whole 'nother beast. They have mechanics, but the mechanics are their to facilitate a story. This is one big differences between the "feel" (to me) of 3.X against 4E. While third felt like it was a single, consistent world in which you could do things, and all creatures great and small worked the same way, fourth feels like a game: there's the player characters, and player characters function differently from NPCs, which function differently from monsters, despite the fact that monsters can be PCs, except when they can't, and NPCs are monsters, except when they aren't. Then there's the very bizarre at-will, encounter, daily split of powers (especially when you take martial classes into consideration; with magic it's more understandable, but just being able to hit something really hard or perform a particular maneuver, or stand with a certain posture, but only once per day is... strange). Take those with the relative inability of the system to handle non-combat actions (skill challenges, I'm looking at you, here) without a very high degree of arbitration and you have a game that looks and feels like a game first and story (not-nearly-as-distant) second to me, regardless of which side of the screen I'm on. The world is arbitrary and divided in ways that don't make sense. (Again, I'm fully aware that people will disagree with me, and that this is subjective, however, I'm getting to the point eventually, I promise). This is true to an extent with 3.X and Pathfinder as well. There are numerous elements of arbitration and plenty of ways to "break" the system; that's understood and volunteered by me. But being able to break the system doesn't really translate into that happening at the tables (at least in my experience). Instead you have a reasonably consistent set of rules that allow for a reasonably immersive experience that allows the whole world to run, act, look, and feel the same way. It feels more like a world in which a story can be facilitated, and a bit less like a game with entirely arbitrary elements. This is what many people here have been talking about with lateral v. horizontal growth. They want their RPGs - their story-games - to be supported by rules (as opposed to having their games supported by stories). One of the problems with purely lateral movement is that, again, this doesn't hold out to well with real-life things either. The farther afield you go, the less you'll master that field. On the other hand, doctorates-holders are masters (pun intended) in their field, unrivaled (excepting, of course, for other doctors... medical or otherwise). RPGs are always going to have to be somewhat abstract, and somewhat more gamey than real-life (thank goodness!) in order to facilitate play. Things like hit points being a measure of life-force is an understandable, but occasionally story-shattering artifact* of game design. I suggest that we look at systems for the purpose of finding ways to streamline, yes, but also to facilitate. I'd suggest something like hit points and wound points (it's been done before) in this one example. Armor as DR would also make sense, then, but then again so does armor-as-miss. There should be ways around the armor doing it's job, just as there armor should be able to apply to many elements. The idea that it would be DR/- (presuming the "-" includes energy-based stuff) doesn't really work as directly as it should, either historically or game wise, but putting too many arbitrary "it works against all but s, t, u, v, w, and x, but it works against y and z, too" is just a bit too complex, I think. And really, that's one main reason for rules revisions and new editions of games - to hit that sweet spot that allows for immersive stories, that doesn't feel too much like a game, that allows for complexity, but isn't too complex ("I don't know; complex casual!"**). I mean, personally, I'd love to see magic separated into multiple sources (like 4E) that do different things*** and behave in their own ways (unlike 4E, save psionics for the last part). I don't know that that's going to happen, but it's something I'd prefer. * Gygax never claimed that hp = life force. However the terminology combined with the function of the game(s) belies his straight-forward assertion that hp =/= life force. Otherwise things like acid damage, or spells like "cure x", or "vampiric touch" wouldn't work the way they do, there'd be no differentiation between lethal and non-lethal (a good mechanic, in my opinion), and there'd be no reason to go into negative hit points. In older editions, there'd be no reason for system shock, either, for that matter. Instead the game insists and reinforces that hp are, in fact, vitality.
THIS IS TOTALLY OFF TOPIC, but I figured vaguely relevant enough to get a note, all things considering:
I mean, I think that if we really look hard at what "magic" is and how it functions, we could define arcane, divine, natural, and psionic magic easily enough. Arcane magic would have schools like conjuration, illusion, necromancy, and transmutation - the things that you can "set and forget", because the magic/spell is doing it for you. Psionics would have things like psychokinesis/evocation, "shapers" (ectoplasm and/or ether), and telepathy/enchantment (although the latter be magic, too) - things that require direct, consistent concentration to manipulate physical reality with energy; that allow you to mold the raw substance of the astral-and/or-ethereal; or that allow you to influence the mind. Abjurations/???, divination/ESP, and other non-covered things would fall more into the realm of the divine (and, in fact, might be "arcane" or "psionic", and the divine doesn't really care, 'cause it does what it wants, it's a deity, foos, I pitty the foos!). Obviously, this doesn't make a perfect fit, and it's just something I'm typing up now without a close examination, however it's the basic idea: psionics is different from (but meshed with) magic; divine and non-divine are similar, if different in their own ways. I still haven't figured out nature magic or what have you. ALSO SAME EDIT, but FAR more on actual topic than the rest of the post:
The signs on the RPG scene these days are pointing to the rather likely possibility that design of the 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons is already under way and possibly has been for some time. It is not the purpose of this post to delve into the details or discuss the likelihood in any great detail, so suffice it to say that the Legends & Lore series of articles seem to point that way, as does the rehiring of Monte Cook by Wizards of the Coast. Further evidence attesting to this comes from sales and the release schedule for 4e – the sales of the Pathfinder RPG are of the same magnitude as those of 4e and may even be outselling it, which is a major achievement, though it probably also owes a great deal to the weak release schedule for 4e that is somewhat reminiscent of the end of official support for 3.5E. In any case, even if you still don’t believe 5e is coming, just assume that it is anyway for the purposes of this thread. I would enjoy seeing a discussion of what Paizo will and/or can do to position itself, as well as the Pathfinder RPG, to prepare for and withstand the challenge that 5E will pose. It appears from the Legends & Lore series of articles that Wizards of the Coast is keen on designing a game that will reunite the splintered D&D fan-base. That may be beneficial for the players, but it could hurt PFRPG and Paizo. I must say that I really like what is being presented in the aforementioned articles, which is in complete contrast to the run up to 4e, where I was more and more repelled by each successive reveal. If this is the case for a substantial section of the Pathfinder RPG player base, than the game can be significantly undercut. I know that PFRPG has been going from strength to strength recently, but it could well be fatal for Paizo to underestimate WotC if the latter comes to the market with a new edition. As high quality as PFRPG products may be, business as usual may not be enough, and there might need to be a more specific response. That said, Paizo has managed to build up a lot of loyalty. It has done a lot of things right to ensure that. Apart from updating a popular edition of D&D with a fresh and flavorful twist, the company has managed to grow it in new directions, while maintaining a high level of quality and excellent production values. On top of that, it has embraced the Open Gaming License, which has further endeared it to the community; a fact further enhanced by the regular interaction of Paizo staff with the community. So, clearly, there will be a large number of players who trust Paizo and will stay with the Pathfinder RPG no matter what lures WotC may throw at them. Others will play both games. Still, not all players are like that and a significant portion of the Pathfinder RPG player base may be susceptible to switching to 5E if WotC does a good job with the game. So what should/will Paizo do to respond to and how will Pathfinder be impacted by 5e D&D? Should Paizo simply attempt to continue its plan for the PFRPG without change and stress stability and/or backward compatibility?
Obviously, this is by no means an exhaustive list of Paizo’s choices and PFRPG’s futures and each of the above can contain many sub-scenarios, but I hope the should be enough to get the discussion going! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posts