|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I see some influence of 4E when reading through 5E. Just rephrased differently. My opinion if they had no write the rules with a mmo vibe. I think 4E would have been more of a success. Then again it also shows how fickle gamers can be. A edition fixes most of the issues if a previous edition. Just not written in a style many liked. Followed by a edition which does the same thing written in a more famiar style yet no one says anything. Note I'm not saying it is or plays like a mmo.
"It's not what you said, it how you said it!"
Just finished Fate/Stay Night, and I think it's allowed me to finally put some of my anime-thoughts into words:
I often get the sense that I'm missing a lot of philosophical themes when I watch anime. I don't know how much of it is my tendency to miss dramatic subtleties in general, how much is due to the themes being lost in translation, and how much of it is culture clash. Or maybe I'm just overthinking things, and not missing anything.
Anyhow, an example from Fate/Stay Night: Shirou is an idealist who wants 'a world where nobody cries.' During the course of the show's two dozen episodes, several characters ridicule his idealism, calling him a 'hypocrite' for caring more about others than he does about himself. And I don't know what to make of that. It sounds a lot like the 'Nobody is selfless because everyone who helps others gets something out of it, even if it's just a warm bubbly feeling' nonsense. But maybe 'hypocrite' is the closest translation of a Japanese word that we don't have; or maybe it's just a bad translation.
Anyhow again, Night has proven to be as visually spectacular as Zero. The dialogue was a bit slow at times for my taste, and some of the characters' actions made me facepalm. (You just got done telling Shirou how much easier it is to kill masters than servants...so why are you ignoring the enemy master?!) But overall a fun watch.
Thanks for your insight, chbgraphicarts. I'm not sure what a war vet would say about 'edition changeover PTSD,' but it does explain some of the reactions we see in these threads. And why so many 'game conservatives' feel the need to chime into these threads to say the same things that they said last time -- to avoid more PTSD, they have to make sure that Paizo knows they don't want a new edition!
And now 4E-lovers are feeling the same sting with 5th Edition, since 5th Ed has much more in common with 3rd Edition than it does with 4E, leaving those mountains and mountains of hardbound 4E books basically orphaned.
I don't think that the 4e fan reaction is coming from where you think it is though. Well, there probably are a couple of fans whose first ttrpg game was 4e whose reaction to 5e matches your description. But those of us who came to 4e from earlier editions are either able to convert whatever they want, or they don't care much about backwards compatibility. After all, we made the jump from 3.5 to 4e!
Like thejeff mentioned, for some of us it's about the rules themselves. For example, converting older stuff to whatever edition I'm playing is almost a non-issue for me. I've never carried a campaign over to a new edition, never felt the desire to port a character over to a new edition, and Planescape is the only setting setting from prior editions that I feel really strongly about. So I don't much care that my 2e and 3.x books are 'obsoleted' -- because hey, I can still mine them for ideas.
What I want is to play with the rules which best match my sensibilities and make it easiest for me to DM my game. Currently, those rules are contained in the 4e books rather than the 5e books, which is why I'm still playing 4e. If 6e is a better game by my standards, I'll happily buy into it. If PF ever changes enough to become a better game by my standards, I'll happily buy into it -- though that's probably never going to happen.
As far as the HP thing goes, treating HP as meat points is just far more internally consistent than treating it as "luck" and "near misses". In fact, can anyone find any part of the system where treating HP as meat points leads to absurdities (other than the fact that people actually get naturally tougher in various ways when their HP goes up, which is the premise of the meat points=HP concept)? Because I don't know of any, but I can think of many internal inconsistencies in the HP=luck, close shaves etc abstraction. Terminal falls, lava, fairly reliably surviving a shank to the throat(a level 20 character with loads of CON, great fortitude and a high class fort bonus can guarenteed natural 2 a STR 12 dagger coup de grace), getting breathed on by a dragon's breath that can melt steel while chained up in a cage sitting in the dragon's mouth while unconscious and paralyzed...and surviving. When HP=meat points, the response to all of this is "of course it doesn't kill him - He's damn tough with his 400HP".
Bob the 20th level fighter being no better at dodging/parrying than he was as a 0th level farm boy is the single glaring problem with hp = meat points.
But that's easy to remedy.
All characters -- even bookworm NPC wizards who never use their dagger for anything more than cutting a rare steak -- automatically get better at stabbing things as they gain experience, at a gradual linear rate. (BAB)
But aside from the rare exception -- like the monk -- anyone who wants to learn how to dodge has to spend special resources to do so. (AC) Additionally, the most worthwhile dodge options create sudden dramatic improvements in a character's skill at dodging.
Meanwhile, non-combat skills advance at a gradual linear rate, but require intentional investment.
I like PF enough to play occasionally when a friend is running it, because it's fundamentally the same as my last favorite game. But I don't like it enough to buy or GM it. It's got enough minor changes to basically require relearning the game, but nothing's changed fundamentally enough to be worth the effort. Core PF is about as extensive as my 3.5 house rules became...except that PF doesn't address many of the things that my house rules did.
On the whole martial/caster issue: I've never met a new player at all concerned with 'realistic' fighters. Just D&D vets who have very specific and selective expectations about 'realism' based on the rules they learned to game with. I have however met new and old players who hate playing the chargen minigame, exemplified by stuff like feats and skill points.
So from my experience, there is value for some players in classes that just attack, attack, attack...but the 3e game engine defeats the very purpose of these classes by requiring them to play the chargen minigame. Also by implementing high-level attack, attack, attack as 'must not move more than 5 feet, then roll dice in order so that staggered ABs can be properly applied...'
I don't know if anyone has mentioned yet, but you can thank the old school alignment descriptions for those stereotypes:
2nd Edition AD&D Player's Handbook wrote:
Chaotic Neutral: Chaotic neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever whim strikes them at the moment. Good and evil are irrelevant when making a decision. Chaotic neutral characters are extremely difficult to deal with. Such characters have been known to cheerfully and for no apparent purpose gamble away everything they have on the roll of a single die. They are almost totally unreliable. In fact, the only reliable thing about them is that they cannot be relied upon! This alignment is perhaps the most difficult to play. Lunatics and madmen tend toward chaotic neutral behavior.
2nd Edition AD&D Player's Handbook wrote:
Obviously, alignment has changed quite a bit over the years, and there have been some very...quirky ideas written down in published books. As time goes on and fewer old-timers cleave to those quirky ideas, alignment becomes less of an issue. But echoes of some of these quirks are hanging on for dear life, even in modern D&D:
Pathfinder SRD wrote:
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
So, moral of the story: History and gaming culture can be a witch.
The overwhelming majority of house rules I've seen posted in that subforum don't actually solve any problems. Many just overcomplicate things under the guise of adding realism or "fixing" a problem. I'd say a good portion of houseruling comes from folks who just want to say they came up with something.
There probably is some ego involved most of the time, but I think it's a mistake to think of game tinkerers as gamers who just want the gamer cred of writing something. There are easier ways to get that cred, starting with simple one-shot adventures.
I'm a frequent tinkerer myself; I've written many bad house rules, and a few good ones. My driving motivation is "This game doesn't work the way I want it to work," as well as the sheer enjoyment I get out of the very process of tinkering with rules. The second one just as much as the first; for example, there's a long list of problems I have with the 3e family of games. (My 2e list is longer.) Literally every time I scroll over the Paizo forums, I see thread titles that make me think "I'm so glad I don't have to deal with that anymore!" Because I have 4e, which plays like a dream. So all those arguments about optimizing and Stormwind, alignment, paladins, broken classes...they're total non-issues for me, because I finally have an edition of D&D that I don't have to butcher to have something that I'm really excited to run.
...And despite all that, I'm working on a 3e-spin-off game that works as I want 3.x to work. Sure, if I ever finish it I'll be able to say "I was the first guy to make multiclassing work in this particular way!" (Assuming someone doesn't beat me to it.) But I'm writing it mostly because 3.x is still in my head, I guess, and because I love tinkering!
Two different views on the same thing, one sees a problem, the other doesn't. I'm pretty sure that one person trying to fix it would cause a problem for the other.
Sometimes. But other times, I'm convinced that the one who doesn't see a problem would be just as content either way...so long as it was the way he/she grew up with, or the way that the devs wrote it down.
I see what you did there. ;)
Hm, never heard of such a variant. Did it have a commonly-known-by name?
I occasionally frequent a MtG forum, and different homebrew ways of solving the mana issue is a perennial topic. Every time it comes up, dozens of old-timers dog-pile the one who brings it up, insisting that it's a terrible idea because it allows this or that exploit. Which is true to one degree or another, depending on the homebrew; but the point of discussion and experimentation is to head these potential problems off at the pass.
Every variant changes the game's status quo, and most require at least a few bans. For example, after being introduced to the Commander format by a new group, I did a card search for legends to use as my commander and discovered one that auto-resurrects and was like Woot, best commander ever! But then I checked the Commander ban-list and surprise, surprise! That card is banned in this format.
I think that certain personalities are prone to getting entrenched in THE WAY THINGS ARE AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN, regardless of the game being played.
Goth Guru wrote:
Because of all my health problems, I know god exists and hates me. I think it's because I killed myself in several past lives. This is why I'm intolerant of atheists who preach and anyone who suggests suicide to anyone, even as a joke.
You just reminded me of the scene in Pitch Black where the Imam and Riddick go back and forth about praying, which ends with Riddick saying...
You think someone can spend half their life in a slam, and not believe? Think a man can start out in some liquor store trash bin with an umbilical cord wrapped around his neck, and not believe? You've got it all wrong, holy man. I absolutely believe in God, and I absolutely hate the f!~%er.
More personally, I have a genetic disorder that's blossomed into all sorts of problems that make my life dangerous and difficult. So I feel ya.
That's rewarding wealth and punishing poverty. That happens enough in the world; I don't need to support a game that reflects such a position.
I totally get this. It is theoretically possible to play in a way that makes money a non-issue -- the 'pauper' format, as well as using proxies as Aranna mentioned -- but in practice, the game is a big money-engine. In order to make money a non-issue, you have to have a group of friendly players free of judgment issues. Which I do not have atm.
Lord Snow wrote:
I may get into MtG again someday, but I'm in a transitory point in my life where my hobbies basically have to require zero ongoing investment. I do find the Modern format very appealing; but I'm not keen on tournament play, so ideally I'd want to find a casual group willing to collectively abide by Modern restrictions. Which is unheard of IME; the casual players I've known all played in the age-old Everything Goes! format.
So for now I'm getting my TCG ya-yas from Hearthstone. Which does have aspects that I'm not crazy about; but it does mean that I can play a pickup hand or two whenever I have the time, and I can play 100% free. And I don't have to worry about mana like I do in Magic!
Lord Snow wrote:
I'd shun both of you, but I'm too busy eating the bacon that you passed up.
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Confession: I have played both MtG and Yugioh and I liked Yugioh much more. The random nature of drawing lands in MtG always drove me crazy.
Yeah, random mana is one of those MtG things that makes the game so hit-or-miss. There are fans who will argue 'til they're blue in the face that it increases deck-building and tactical depth, and that the added randomness basically gives noobs a free win every third game or so, which is true enough. But it's also true that without mana (or too much), you're basically just sitting there waiting for your opponent to win. Which is boooring!
I'd love a game (or a MtG format) where you draw from two decks: a spell deck, and a land deck. That way you could mix n match colors in the deck-building minigame -- which is a big appeal for me -- and avoid the feast-or-famine mana issue.
Blayde MacRonan wrote:
July 3rd... Season 2 of Knights of Sidonia comes to Netflix.
Blayde MacRonan wrote:
*Squeals like a nine year old girl*
captain yesterday wrote:
I have a contrary streak in me, if a bunch of people like something I won't, just because everyone else does, I'm especially resistant to peer pressure, it has the opposite effect, in the plus side tho I've never seen Titanic or Avatar, never did anything harder than weed and got the f*!# our of the s+$*ty little town I spent my teenage years trapped in :-)
I've never even done weed -- but then, asthma is a good reason to avoid inhaling anything except fresh air. I experimented with drinks for a brief period; my drink of choice was the gin and tonic. But soon enough I realized I'd rather just have the tonic, and haven't touched alcohol since.
Yes, I enjoy tonic water in and of itself. Thanks, dad!
So to summarize the trigger warning issue: Some magazines use content-warnings as a favor to their readers, some people use 'TW' as a part of obvious jokes, and some law students are requesting TWs to maybe avoid genuine issues and maybe skip class.
Yeah, I can see how that last one could be a problem; but overall, color me unimpressed with all the gnashing of teeth over TWs. I wasn't even aware of this TW thing until someone on the internet complained about it -- and I've been through college twice -- so from where I sit all of the noise is coming from people being triggered by trigger warnings themselves. Maybe the internet needs a new TW...
Trigger Warning: The following text contains the words 'trigger warning.'
A sorcerer's magic comes from within. That's not "harnessing the outside without a source". It's literally in their blood.
For sorcerers, magic comes more-or-less naturally -- a lot like mutant powers come to mutants. For psions, magic is a discipline.* Wilders are the Wheel of Time channelers of D&D.
Anyhow, I'm not crazy about the sci-fi terminology either, but I'm happy to have psionic characters in my games. Precisely because I can simply treat psionics as magic by another name, much like 137ben. I'm actually kinda surprised that nobody -- pro or fan -- has ever gone through the spell chapter and converted each one to a psionic spell. Quite a few of them have already been done officially. (Example: psionic disintegrate.)
*Wild talents throw a wrench into the discipline theme, I guess, but I don't like those and pretend they don't exist.
...Oh right, this thread is about shunning. I SHUN thee, GTG!
HP has the unusual distinction of being a series that very noticeably changes tone as the series progresses. In #1, the protagonists are innocent kids, and the tone and conclusion are 100% rated-G. A few books later, the climax of the book is a good kid dying right before teenage-Harry's eyes. And of course #7 ends with beloved characters being killed in the very first chapter, and things don't get any softer for the protagonists as they're forced to grow up all too quickly.
And at the risk of triggering Kryzbyn...
OMG HAVE YOU READ HARRY POTTER YET, IT'S THE BEST SERIES EVAAAR?!
Confession: I know nothing about the Vigilante, or what's shun-worthy about liking or not liking it.
Simon Legrande wrote:
...Ah yes, I can see the allegory to the allegory of the cave.
Cave = Matrix
Well, I can sort of see it, I guess. What's your take on it?
Simon Legrande wrote:
I watched the first Matrix in a religion class, because the professor loves gnosticism. I think I've also been part of philosophical Matrix conversations, but I can't remember any specific themes. What are your favorites?
pH unbalanced wrote:
Mark Rosewater wrote:
Each set, R&D makes sure to design a certain number of cards for Timmy. Timmy cards, as we call them, tend to be big creatures or spells with big effects. In general, Timmy cards are exciting but not too economical.
There are no 'mysteries,' so long as you understand everything.
There's also the array.
The "Deep Space Nine is by far the best series" assertion is extremely common among people who never really liked the franchise, and consider it "the most realistic" of the shows. It was once probably as common in certain circles as "Firefly is the best show evah!" is today.
You're half right, in my case. I can appreciate ST, but I'm not a card-carrying Trekkie. DS9 is my favorite ST series because it's the most morally gray of them.
...On second thought, there's a good argument to be made that morally gray situations and characters are more realistic than consistent everybody-wins situations and sparkly clean characters. So maybe you're totally right about me after all.
Close runner-up is The Next Generation. Starts off less than good, but improves after a while.
I don't think that TNG is nearly as compelling as fans tend to think, but there was one scene from a particular episode that's stuck with me after ~20 years. The Enterprise comes upon a planet, deserted except for an elderly human couple. There's obviously something fishy going on, and at the end of the episode Picard confronts the husband...
...who turns out to be an alien entity of deific power. (Like Q, I guess, except not irritating.) The entity tells Picard his story: There was once a human colony on the planet. He came upon the colony, took human form, fell in love with one of the women, married her and then lived as a human for some time. But then the planet was invaded by some alien army, and in the mayhem his wife was killed. (What appeared to be his wife during the episode is merely an illusion.)
"In a moment of anger, I killed the aliens." The entity tells Picard. "And then out of remorse for what I'd done, I became a hermit here."
"Well you may have overreacted, but the invaders did kill your wife. Your rage and retribution are understandable." Picard replies.
"No," the entity replies. "You don't understand; I didn't just kill the invaders. I killed all of the aliens, everywhere."
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Same here. The SW prequels, the Hobbit movies, the ST reboots -- I enjoyed them all. Not as much as the originals, mind, but I don't consider them the cinematic slop that fans often do.*
But then, I have this trick where I can compartmentalize different films. If one film is of a different quality and/or tone than another movie within the same franchise, I consider them to be alternate realities. This allows me to cleanse my palette, so to speak, so that I can enjoy what entertainment a movie can provide.
In fact, when it comes to the Abrams reboots, I like them more than the tv series. I get why ST fans find them to be a big step down from the original spirit of the franchise, but none of that bothers me.
Yup. Much like Lord Snow, I didn't even make it to the second episode of Buffy. Firefly, on the other hand, had me right from "We're too pretty to die!" (I saw the episodes in order, years after the fact.)
A few days later, I talked a reluctant friend into watching the first episode, and I saw the Fan light come on in her eyes from the very same line. I never became a Fan with a capital F, but she ended up buying the comic book that links Firefly with Serenity, as well as other paraphernalia that I've forgotten the nature of.
Oh, and I second pH unbalanced's suggestion. Dollhouse is much better than its premise sounds.
I've never read comic books, but I of course heard about superheroes from a young age. For a long time, I assumed that each superhero existed in his or her own universe -- even within the Marvel and DC franchises -- because with the exception of the mutant phenomenon which handily explains a bunch of mutant superheroes running around together, the thought of so many people having or acquiring so many different super powers within such a short span of human history is just too implausible, even within the context of a fictional universe that allows for one superhero. Right...?
Wrong, I am! I guess it's not a problem for most readers/viewers.
I enjoyed both Avengers movies, but I did so despite the added implausibility of all those characters existing within the same universe. Let alone all speaking the same language.
If the masses praise something as being super cool prior to me seeing, reading, or listenimg to it then 98% of the time I will dismiss it as dung. If someone likes something a lot then I would love to hear why they love versus "OMG, you gotta llike this because well the other sheeple do."
This kinda happened to me with Lovecraft. I read rave reviews and references to his fiction for years before reading it, and when I finally did, it was a huge letdown. I don't think I would have loved his fiction if I had never heard anything about it before, but all the talk just made me go "This is what all the hype was over?!"
(Let the shunning of TS now continue!)
I think that the more feats we have, the more people believe they need a specific feat to be able to do anything.
I wonder if a little extra text would remove this perception, in the case of feats which cover actions which would normally require a DM call. For example, if someone at Paizo (or whatever company) writes a Trick Shot feat which allows a character to ricochet arrows off of objects at a -1 to hit per object, how would fans' perceptions change if the feat text included the entry "Normal: Without this feat, ricocheting arrows off of objects imposes a -5 to hit per object." Would this make fans happy, or would they then start complaining that "Ugh, this is camouflaged game errata! Now I need to buy new splatbooks to have all the game rules! This is a travesty!!!"?
Simon Legrande wrote:
Yes, yes, even the gospel truth itself isn't objective truth. Doesn't change the fact that people who walk around preaching their own opinion without qualifiers share the responsibility for creating more uninformed opinions.
The auto-immune response to 3.5. material in the hobby. Everything is overpowered or broken in 3.5. While I agree sometimes their are better options and vice-versa. It's one thing if they actually read the material. More often than not they heard from a guy that it's broken. So it's broken. If that same guy told you it's okay to burn down your house would you still listen to him.
These are probably the same people who insist that 4e sucks, because "Everybody says so."
Sometimes the phenomenon is excusable, in the case of new players who don't know any better. But ugh, yes, people really ought to at least read something before passing judgment on it.
I recently started online DMing, and invited an old friend to play who hadn't gamed since I was DMing 3.5 ~10 years ago. One of his first questions was "Are we playing 3e or 5e?" because some guy in a game store had told him that 4e sucks. So I told him how 4e is the edition that fans either love or hate, and about the nerdrage that it's generated. So I also blame the gamers who make unqualified generalizations as if they were speaking gospel truth.
(The guy also told my friend that 5e is great because humans are good. To which I told my friend, "Ah, humans have been awesome since 3e. This guy is clearly an edition warrior.")
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Was your response, as mine is right now, a blank stare eventually followed by "...So why do you hate the psion?"
I've been writing my characters on looseleaf paper and notebooks since 2e.
*Pencil & Paper Solidarity!*
Steve Geddes wrote:
Bingo! I like Paizo, I'd like to someday play or run a Paizo AP, and I've been here since the 3.5 days.
I don't even hate PF. There are things I hate about PF -- no level-based AC bonus, wizards being incapable of the humble cure light wounds spell, along with a lot of minor thematic and mechanical inconsistencies -- but these are things I also hated about 3.0-.5. Which was my favorite rpg for eight years.
So I actually like PF; I just don't run or seek out PF campaigns.
Yes, they were. I'm also pretty sure that 3.0 was the first edition to give bards their own spell list.
Agreed 100%! I'm not familiar with any particular archetypes, but PrCs, ACFs, feats, and class abilities have been a mess since 3.0. As I'm sure you're aware. (Oh, Spellthief, you were the perfect candidate for being a PrC!) By the end of my 3.5 career, I had started telling players who wanted to take most PrCs "What particular abilities do you want from this PrC? I think we can convert it into a feat..."
So, yeah, someone should get on this multiclassing problem with a new game/clone...*whistles off-key*
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I think that 3.x-style multiclassing has the potential to be the perfect marriage of class-based and point-based character creation. Assuming it's balanced, it gives DMs an immediate and accurate measure of character capability and allows players like Lee Teague to write "[class x] [level y]" on their character sheet, fill in a few pertinents, and be done with it; while also allowing players like DarkLightHitomi a degree of freedom to play the organic character which a game world ideally allows.
You may say that I'm a dreamer,
Just watched Expelled from Paradise, a post-apocalyptic mecha sci-fi in which most of humanity exists in digital form within a refuge called Deva. Angela Balzac, the protagonist, is an agent of Deva on a mission to protect it from a hacker known as Frontier Setter. This movie is a fast-paced action drama. Other than her at-your-fan-service outfit, Angela is an engaging and believable protagonist who becomes a new character by the film's end, and avoids straying into the trite tropes that I expected at the start.
I give Expelled from Paradise four stars out of five.
Edit: For a contribution to the thread - I loathe Magic: the Gathering. Despite numerous attempts (most of my gaming group is big on Magic), I've never played a round of Magic that I've actually enjoyed.
I have a love-hate relationship with MtG. It truly is a novel and creative game, and I can have a lot of fun playing it, but it'll always be chained by its roots. In some ways -- if you play the Standard format exclusively, at least -- it becomes a new game every 2(?) years; but there are certain assumptions and legacy quirks that never go away. Somewhat like D&D.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Ah, gotcha. There are songs where I love one half but hate the other half, so...right, there's no accounting for taste.