|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The black raven wrote:
And we don't agree on this one.
There should be danger and the threat of losing, at least some of the time. And no the DM should NOT have to rework everything in the adventure so that happens. This is not what happens currently. Recently, I almost soloed a module with my "weak" by your standards build for Eldric with just the help of a cleric that healed me. I finished the end boss alone in three rounds. Should it not tell you something ?
Offering better options for the players to customize their characters is fine, but this is also exactly where the arms race is. The arms race IS there. So if you do not offer a higher challenge in the adventures while allowing every option available to the players, the game becomes a cakewalk. And I don't believe in restricting players choice too much.
I believe you will understand my point of view soon when you master Jade Regent and see for yourself.
I think Pathfinder is already overpowered for Pathfinder, so ToB is definitely no go :)
No seriously gimme
DEADLIER Adventures !!!
I want a Hard mode. Like now ! No more mr Nice guy !
I have experienced players who are way too comfy with the rules loopholes.
The PCs are not the problem. the opposition IS.
I have only played the first Assassin's Creed II game, and not the others yet. I don't remember QTE's in the first one. If there were some, then they were good enough that I forgot them, or else they come later in the series.
I have definitely to try the second game, but first, I am going to advance more in skyrim.
Scott Betts wrote:
That sounds reasonable, and I could agree with that, but no I don't recall any game with a good QTE. If you know one, ask me, that might change my mind.
Yeah mostly, you get a prompt at a very counterintuitive moment, that usually makes no sense at all, and by the time it is displayed on screen, it is too late, you die horribly, and have to reload the game, waste ten minutes, and learn the sequence by rote in order to hope winning.
And then, that's the good part, usually, they are bug-ridden too.
No, thanks. Give me back my cutscenes.
Scott Betts wrote:
Yes.I have found that I don't like games with QTEs, and that however the rest of the game may be good or not, QTEs ruin the enjoyment of the game for me after a short while.
Past examples that were ruined for me : Dead Space 2 and 3, Tomb raider.
So now QTEs = no buy.
I like cheesecake, and I don't see why it should not be here, unless we go for an all-realistic approach, where swords are the correct size, dagger wounds actually kill you, armor is actually funtional, wounds are handled realistically, combat is actually deadly, and magic has realist outcomes (nil effect).
In short, no prudeness in my Fantasy.
Someone close recently said to me that she has not ever met someone who was not at least part of a ....... at times, yet you have to keep the good parts and forget the rest.
So you should have a discussion with your old time friend, outside of game, with probably a few beers, get a good laugh, and move on.
Here it is :
It looks promising, but is unlikely to be translated.
To me I think a lot of the posters are projecting their emotions, and often bad gaming past experiences due to jerk DMs.
My view is that to have satisfaction in eliminating your enemies, you need them to be antagonistic and evil (by your view).
When you are new to the game, an orc is a wonderful thing to slay. After ten, er twenty, er thirty, er ... ? years of gaming, the orc needs to be something really evil/unpleasant/bad to bother fighting it.
Generic fantasy settings get boring. Fast. How many times have I saved the world already ? A good enemy is some guy you can hate, guilt-free.
And that's why I am annoyed by sanitized reprensentations of our world, or of any fantasy world.
YMMV, and so on
This is an interesting question.
My answer : it is interesting to give the modern answer to a world that mirrors old time values.
I will dare the slavery question : I hold slavery as extreme evil.
I think fighting against worldwide cultural evil is all the more virtuous than fighting against localised sanitised evil.
I'll try to say it some other way : in game design way, it is much better if a lot of the gaming world seems evil (ancient/medieval/alien/other) to us modern gamers, as it will create more opportunities to shine and show the game world the "right" (ours) way through our PCs.
There is no much glory, IMO, in fighting a sanitized world with "not quite good" guys, when you could be fighting EVVVIILLLLLL !!!!! guys.
And no demons and devils don't count : they get old pretty fast, while eveil NPCs don't.
YMMV, friendly advice and all that, of course.
I'd rather to have scenarii and APs with more human (-like) level baddies, and less extra-planar/save the world/save the convenient pocket plane/whatever ... because I would relate more to them.