Watcher!'s page

You know those guys who are just so full of themselves and whiney, who just love to laugh that little knowing chipmunk laugh and point out your failings and inadequacies and stop at length to tell you how cool and right they are. No one likes to be around them, but for some heaven-knows-why reason they just don't seem to get it?

Low charisma.

Now imagine this guy has saved your life and your entire village...an just won't let it go.

"Hey man, so is a free ale too much to ask from the guy who kept your kids from getting killed in front of you because you're too much of a woman to keep it from happening!"

Wow...and misogynistic! Happy!

So how do you treat this hero if this is your town?

You make a great point Grimcleaver, and so does Sean in the post above yours..

(and in this post I'm not defending what was said in the other thread, I'm now taking the topic of heroics and charisma at face value)

What you've written makes complete and total sense when you're role-playing an NPC for the party. It makes sense if the player has a low charisma and is role-playing that attribute out..

But what happens when you hit that disconnect when a player just doesn't have his character act in any way that isn't completely pleasant?

I suppose one could just make people react negatively, with the PC's evey intention misunderstood and taken poorly.. but.. heh.. what if it is intended to be a 1st to 15th level campaign? After a while that becomes an exercise in dues ex machina, and a tired gag.

My point: you're absolutely right, but everyone has to play their part or you break the suspension of disbelief.

You may want to check out this thread on beating her.

It's your decision to level up the group en media res or require them to enter town, find mentors and trainers, spend amount of gold/ level, etc. However, at first level, they shouldn't get far in the catacombs anyway. Even if they level up in the catacombs, they still won't benefit from some benefits (memorized spells, restored hit points) sans house rule without resting 8 or more hours.

I did read it DarkArt, but thanks for the link... (seriously)

I think you're missing the nuance of the question.. Let me add some more context..

The players enter, kill the first sinspawn.. and let's say that they depart back to town to get more spells and the like.

(I am inclined to make them get that eight hours rest, because it sets a solid precedent for higher levels)

What is Erylium's response when the spawn is found dead? How do the catacombs change now that someone has made an aggressive foray into them?

And, I'm not looking for creative ways to cream the 2nd level party, but ideas on how things change dynamically as a result of the PCs actions.

My players are going to level after the first encounter in the Catacombs.

They're first level now, so I'd like them to have the opportunity to get the benefit of 2nd level before facing Erylium.

I haven't decided if I am going to make them exit the dungeon, level, and then return.. or just have the reap the benefit(s) right away. My first instinct is having them exit and then return, but my mind is not made up.

Assuming they leave, and then return.. I am just speculating on Erylium response to future incursions by do-gooders.

Any thoughts, and/or ideas?

You definately have to play to your character's weaknesses. I understand why some DMs don't do it, but if I am playing a character with a Wisdom of 7 (and he was a Fighter with an Int of 16) I will have fun with it. It shouldn't have to be the DMs problem to deal with a character's stats.

I agree. My cleric player has an Int of 10, and he is played as quite wise, but a little thick. The player does that on his own and he does a fine job of it.

The Monk was a charisma of a flesh eating ghoul was not. I'd never have known if I hadn't questioned his stats.

You see, despite my critics, if you really want heckle me... all the players but this guy had their characters to me in excel before the start of the game. I was just rusty and wanted to dive right in starting the campaign. I should have taken a moment and reviewed that last character sheet.

But if your players are not enforcing what their own stats are and the effects they should be having, then its time to take matters into your own hands and see what happens.

And this is where people seem to take exception with what I did. A charisma of 8 is one thing.. fairly low. My understanding of how the attributes play out in real terms is that 6 is dramatically low. The party often works together as a group. Taking aside the fairness to the other players who built their characters according the guidelines, I didn't want every scene to spotlight the 'loathed' character to the distraction of the other players. Simon said "Make a character", Simon didn't say "Make an incredibly dexterous and strong version of Mr. Roper from Three's Company." If people want to criticize that, I guess I can't stop them.

That's a funny image, sure, but I'm not running this for laughs.

Totally agree. In fact, I have an example from a game I played in yesterday.

Setting: D20 Apocalypse
Character: Clive Quoyle (CE* male human wild talent / fast 1) *we were using alignments

Clive (Cha 8), a plug-ugly, black-toothed, tobacco-chewing hillbilly managed to fend off seven armored soldiers with a machete, unintentionally saving the rest of the party (knocked out by sleeping gas), creating one of the most cinematic moments of my gaming career, and completely screwing up the DM's plot hook.

A fair example, but as the OP that Tequilia has referenced.. I do have a couple of characters with a Charisma of 8, like Clive

These are players who followed the character creation rules.

The character being discussed had a charisma of 6.

All players being treated equally- that's what the original thread was really about, before it was taken off onto a tangent. Where role-playing heroes came into the conversation is when the player tried to retroactively rationalize it.

But I won't entirely try to dismiss the OP of this thread.. In your example the GM must have been comfortable with Clive Quoyle in his/her game. Does that mean other GM's should be judged and indicted if Clive doesn't fit their game? Or can we agree to disagree?

I just didn't want a starting character to sell down their base stat in order to buy more Strength. <shrug>

With some reluctance, I'm going to re-enter this one more time. Just because while I appreciate Tequila's comments, and that Mwbeeler got something out the thread that wasn't intended...

... if people are going to talk about the thread, I want to restate the position in *my* words, rather than be misinterpreted.

(Quick caveat, I started the other thread for advice, and I felt rather quickly I was put on trial. I dumped the thread because I got what I needed out of it. That is, I got the help I needed, and I resolved it without getting confrontational with the player)

Grimcleaver has the right of it, my point was more finessed than is being depicted here.

First and foremost, the biggest concern that hasn't really been commented on, was the fairness of it. That is, "is it really fair to the other players, who followed the rule as stated?" Nobody touches that with a ten foot pole. I had a cleric, bard, rogue, and a druid who all had to make difficult choices in assigning abilities. I'm sure they would have liked to have the benefit of an extra constitution point, or greater dex and strength.. but they did without. Why? Because every attribute had to have at least a score of 8, because the instructions were to follow the rule as written.

Just to head any counter-arguments off, the player never asked me if they could sell down their attribute, they just did it. All the players are adults over 30, and after I talked to the guy on the phone, he assured me that he understood what he was doing. It wasn't a confusion about the rules. He took the "Better to just do it and ask for forgiveness later" approach. Which didn't sit well with me, but after a little vent here, I didn’t get pissy about. However, will you concede that I'm the GM? I have to adjudicate rules fairly, right? I didn't get huffy, I just asked him, out of fairness to the other players, would he please correct that. And to his credit, he understood.

Now, I did remark about the role-playing in the other thread. When I questioned the player about the charisma of six, prior to posting here, he himself pointed out that the NPC's could have negative reactions to him (no duh, of course). This was as a way to appease my concern. Note that this suggestion on the part of the player came after I found out his Charisma was 6. And many posters kindly did give me advice on how to do that... Here's my issue with it: Do I want to focus my energy on making sure this guy gets the negative disadvantage that he deserves? Because to not enforce it is *really* unfair to all the players who did take a charisma of at least 8. Or do I focus my energy on collaborative story-telling with a party that in all other respects but this one, works as a pretty good team?

(And just for context, it’s the Pathfinder: Rise of the Runelords campaign, when the party is supposed to be heralded as heroes for saving the town)

And, as a GM at the start of a first level campaign, have I no right to say I'd rather avoid what I see as a disruptive disadvantage? I mean the guy could have talked to me up front about it. Maybe a 32 point build was too low? My point is, at the beginning of the campaign you talk about this sort of thing maturely and as adults. You come to common ground, something I was willing to do. To read this thread I was "oppressing freedom and putting the brother down”, and the player should “Fight the Powers that Be.” It's really kinda funny, how the 'whole sneak it past the GM' thing just gets overlooked. Isn’t my preference on how to run my campaign my prerogative?

A lot of posters, including Tequila Sunrise, have made this about my apparent inability to see low charisma characters as competent and/or heroic. Respectfully, that is their personal pet peeve or 'bone to pick' with the gaming community at large. I don't have problem with seeing low charisma as being potential heroic. I do have a problem with one player not following the same guidelines as all the other players. I also have a problem with a low attribute being meaningless, and then being told it's my job to enforce it when it was never part of the starting guidelines to begin with.

Tequilia and others: You have a valid point. Low charisma can be heroic. Just please don't project your gripe on to me, you're not exactly representing what I said in the right context. If I didn't go into such great detail before, it was because I didn't really think it was necessary.

Okay.. make of that what you will.

well, I think all the stats are used enough that there is no problem; if you really want to make this come to the forfront then bring into your game more actions that require charisma skills and that character. I think the 32 pt build is pretty small and consider those characters farmers, but that is just me, on one of these posts I did a roll the dice comparison of lots of rolls as compared to the build, but dont have that data handy; anyway, I dont see a problem with a monk with a charisma of 6; this could be explained easily by the guy not having much exposure to people outside his monestary; now if the guy plays his monk very gregariously, well then that is probably abuse and his low stat should reflect how people treat him; perhaps thinking he is a rude; uncultured, stinky or unwashed, non tolerant person and be rude back to him regardless of the players skills. I would expect players to comment that you didnt set any min or max to what a characteristic could be; just a thought.

Fair points, but I did ask them if 32 points seemed reasonable (and I was really open minded about allowing more), and they all agreed. <shrug>

As for the role-playing, I really didn't want to role-play a campaign where I have to remain viligant that extreme disadvantages are consistantly enforced in order for them to be actually a bone fide disadvantages.

As for players not commenting on a minimum or maximum.. those are actually in the DMG rules for a buy-in.. 8 point minumum. I overlooked that and posters in this thread pointed that out to me.

***************

End of the story.. I talked to the player. Turns out that he just wanted to be able to use a certain weapon that required a certain strength. I asked nicely, because all the other players adhered to the buy-in rules as stated, if he would too. He agreed. I thanked him. Everything's cool..

Thanks everyone for their feedback. (I'm done, feel free to continue without me)

Well, er, I don't want to sound mean but you know that classes no longer have 'minimum requirements' in 3.x like they did in 2e, right? If you want to play a paladin with 8 STR, 10 WIS, and 9 CHA, you can, you'll just be kind of a sucky paladin. Likewise, you can also play a wizard with a 10 INT, you'd just be pretty worthless and restricted to casting only cantrips until you got your hands on a headband of intellect.

You got me. Nope.. I played in the AD&D hardback days and skipped the third generation till a month ago. I'm like that lone guy on a tropical island who doesn't know WWII is over...

All this is assuming that your player is simply omitting some kind of offensive quality. If he is actively roleplaying a high charisma though, it's time for you to have a chat with him. His character should not be genuinely charming, affable, magnetic or whatever.

First... thanks everyone for all the replies! It's been very helpful.

Ultimately.. when it comes right down to it.. I think what irks me here is not the role-playing, it's that it was stated upfront that we're following a pretty standard 3.5 SRD, which stated exceptions, and a 32 point buy-in.. which I even said 'talk to me if you want to play a class whose lowest attribute requirements you don't meet.' And lastly, I feel comfortable saying that he knows the rules well..

It's that everyone else in the group adhered to the guidelines, and this came in under the radar because I was brushing up on the rules. Not that he has a charisma of 6, but that all other the players grappled with difficult choices in spending their points, but in their case, they made those choices. I was never asked if he could sell down..

Watcher! wrote:

Comments, suggestions?

Whenever I spy someone in my campaigns doing something like this, I usually let it slide as long as I resonably can before putting them up against some kind of undead creature that drains the offending attribute. When you're fighting something that drains Charisma and your score is only 6, you will learn the price of min-maxing when the thing drops you in one swipe and you go down for the count. Remember, a 0 in any attribute means helpless (unless it's CON, then you're just dead).

I see what you mean... But I'd rather just he not making me play rules traffic cop.

Thanks though...

Does he have a racial penalty to Charisma? Because, if not, the lowest he could have is an 8.

No, no.. he does not. He is quite human.

I'm not a new GM, but I am relatively new to DnD 3.5.

You might have just given me the answer I need. <sigh> But this fellow has been playing this edition for years. I'm kinda disappointed that I'm having to watch out for this sort of silliness with adult players.

Thanks Evil Genuis.

This is the only D&D site I frequent with any regularity. I've been mulling something over, and I thought I would ask for feedback and/or advice.

When I started the Pathfinder campaign (this is a general concern though, not Pathfinder specific), I let the players do a 32 point build, as described in the DMG.

I've got one monk with a charisma of six. A big six. With his other relevant attributes (like Strength and Dex) appropriately higher. He doesn't really role-play a charisma of six, and I don't really have the NPCs treat him as if he has a sub-normal charisma. I don't want to in fact, it seems sort of dumb when characters are supposed to be heroes.

So am I being had here? My group knows what mini-maxing is.. and this player would probably swear up and down that is not what he's doing. Yet it strikes me as a little unfair to the other players who built more balanced characters.

Comments, suggestions?

And, I imagine this is not an unheard of situation- I've been out of the DnD loop many years.

I agree that some of the art in Pathfinder 1 doesn't fit the style of the book. Pathfinder 2 is a HUGE step closer to where we're heading with the art style. There's no "cartoony" art in there, really (except for Kyle's ghoul in the Foreword). At least, it doesn't look cartoony to me. I can guarentee that some readers won't like it or will think it's cartoony, simply based on the fact that "cartoony" means different things to different people, though.

Yeah, and I think the Foreword is (and should be) different. It's your introduction to the product and you're editor-in-chief of the line. If someone can't differentiate between a lighter illustration on an introduction, and actual in-game art work.. Well, they're probably the sort of individual who needs to find something wrong with the product in order to convince themselves that they have discerning taste.

Anyway, my comments about Ameiko don't diminish the overall product, which I can already see from Chapter #2 will only get better.

Watcher: could you please provide a link (or tell me the name of the thread) where those maps could be found??? Would be too nice!

Sure Dryder...

Creating Maps for Burnt Offerings Thread

Erian_7 did the maps for the first couple goblin fights, but I couldn't view them at his link..

Look for a post by Trent Slaubaugh (sp?) His site has Erian's maps that you can see properly.

And don't be disappointed if you don't see a lot of maps. Catdragon sent me his, and I appreciated it, but I liked the ones made with Dundjinni's engine better. I've been working on the Glassworks but I can't post it because I do use some of their propriety art. If this doesn't make a lot of sense, then read the other thread and it will.

A lot of people have vowed to make maps, but there aren't many. I can't fault anyone for not giving me something I was never promised.. but those battlemaps were like crack, I have to have more. Hence the whole idea in the first post, of just people able to zoom the maps in the book to the right size without losing all clarity.

I have the advantage of a color plotter at work, but Kinko's and the like are other options.

Count me in on the 'I would pay for that' side too...something gets lost in translation when you're drawing on a vinyl hexmap, to say the least...i can't wait to bust out the subscriber-made maps tomorrow for our first foray into Golarion!

Erian_7's goblin battlemaps?

Man.. I can't tell you how much of a difference that made in the opening fight. It was like Christmas, and they weren't even uber-detailed maps.

I've been slaving away at the Glassworks and the Catacombs of wrath ever since.

If I could only blow up the map in the PDF (because work has a color plotter), I would be in heaven.

James and Co...

How about these names? The asian ones are really hard for me to guess particularly.

"Ameiko", "Tsuto", and "Kaijitsu"

...and Shalelu Andosana

I'm not sure if this is doable.

We'll look into it, though. It might not be impossible.

--Erik

That's all I can ask Erik, thanks!

I was really dissappointed by th artwork inside of Pathfinder. Not the maps and stuff, but the characters. I really don't like the style of most of it.

Yor stuff, on the other hand, I love. Paizo should snatch you up immediately (maybe they have already).

Quoted for truth!

GRANT! Love your stuff!

FOR THE LOVE OF DESNA.. Get Ameiko out of the trailer park that the other artist put her in, and redraw her! Pleeeeeeze!

Seriously, you should have gotten the business of drawing these characters. I'd really love to see your version of Ameiko. She's one that suffered the most.

Well, hey - maybe I'll have to whip up some new Ameiko art myself and post it over in my Fan Art thread. ;)

I agree with J.J.!

I'd love to see some better art..

I thought it would be cool to try to foster some kind of relationship with Ameiko and PC.. and I just couldn't get past the existing picture.

Sandpoint and all of Chapter #1 is still great, but that was a samll rough patch for me. Much more than the font size, in my case.

My players just start making Little Nicky references...

Hey! Prince, Purple Rain album (showing my age)

Took me a second before I got it.

DM G wrote:

So I haven't been able to say the words "celestial taint" to my PCs without it being followed by ten minutes of giggling.. (if you don't know why, then your mind is cleaner and more mature than theirs. heh)

my players just start making Little Nicky references...

Thanks to the art (which is a lot better in Chapter #2), my players think Ameiko should be in a trailer park, doing nails and permanents out of her home.

I haven't skimmed it yet, but I am hoping in some future Chapter Ameiko gets a new drawing.

Did anyone else see her season premier last night? Long story short anyone in the D&D community over age 12 took another embarrassing hit for playing the game.

Ah.. keep it in perspective. She was looking for an easy target to distract the unhappy masses who were pissed that she said of Brittney Spear's two little boys, "aren't they most adorable little unwanted accidents you've ever seen?"

Even though Brittney garners no love herself, that didn't go over too well.

So now it's "point at the easy target" time!

Hey, I still don't see the PDF as available on my downloads...I want to read it at work, what gives???

It doesn't let you download until they've actually got your copy physically ready to ship (in a mailing envelope with your address label on it) and charged your credit card.

That system is in place so that no one gets a PDF before they've been charged.. and ethically they probably can't charge a card until they know for certain the book is in the mail. You see, the first time someone gets charged before something has shipped, there's usually hell to pay, regardless of the industry.

I imagine their distribution team is busily packaging them up right now so it won't be long. Sorry buddy.

I am a US customer and I gots mine!

Good work Paizo!

Don't forget!

The Pathfinder chat will be held at http://chat.dmtools.org/ tonight, around 8pm PST (that's 11pm EST for you East Coasters out there). Come early, check out the new digs!

Lilith,

Do you make a log anywhere?

You kids were in your cups last night, (or @#$!in' high as a kite if you want to be more contemporary about it). This old man had to go to work the next day.

Did anyone show up after Jason B?

Anything Pathfinder related get discussed.

Which makes it no more or less valid than your opinion

My reaction could hardly be surprising. When you bandy words like 'Hogwash' about, you will draw a strong reaction. I'm happy to leave it that and discuss the actual topic, but let us not side step all responsibility for what we say, or the need to respect each other.

I've just never seen any of the "problems" you cite epic characters causing.

Granted, but we all have different experiences. Also, it's as much my reaction as a GM, reading the material as it was the reactions of players.

That is, someone, somewhere else, doing something more meaningful and interesting than what the players are doing. And another poster had an excellent point, that was as much WOTC trying to drive the sale of novels as it was the actual gaming product.

And I will agree with you that Pathfinder shouldn't have much information about epic characters, a description, personality, class breakdown, and maybe a generic combat action breakdown (Epic Fighter 1 likes his longsword and shortsword style) should be sufficient, unless the individual is meant to accompany the PCs (who should be just as powerful).

With just that information, we can do the rest in detailing the NPC, if it becomes necessary.

And I can agree with you on that as well.

As someone pointed out, such Epic individuals must exist, and to deny that is unreasonable and muddles with suspension of disbelief.

I just have this outlook towards the gaming products I like the best..

1.) That they serve to help me the GM, run the best game possible for my players. (The players being the focus).
2.) That they immerse me in a rich and detailed background.

Here's the catch- Number 2 is not to eclipse Number 1. You can do both in balanced proportion, but don't you dare let the later come before the former.

That's my primary concern about Epic characters. How will they make my game better for my players. If the writer/publisher can have them and enrich the PC experience, hey- I won't argue! If it's some background color that is kept within a reasonable proportion, sure.. okay, so long as it's not too much. However, when you start getting material about NPCs that makes the GM actually wish he had the Adventure Path that the NPCs must be on; then I think the writer/publishers has lost sight of the goal.

Also, as J. Jacobs acknowledged, Pathfinder is a premium product. To his credit, he doesn't call it expensive, but concedes that it might be out of the desired price range for some people. He has to be a good steward of those 96 pages in every Chapter and make sure the're filled with value for the subscriber/buyer. My opinion, as just one subscriber, is that a lot of word count devoted to Epic "Elminster" style NPCs is not providing good value (with the caveats I mentioned in the paragraph above).

And as for PCs being overshadowed and redundant due to the presence of epic characters, hogwash.

Hogwash?

That's your opinion buddy. Duly noted.

As for me, I'll put it in more pragmatic terms. I don't want much of Pathfinder's page count dedicated to your high level Epic Hero NPCs. (And you'll note I said 'much' not 'any at all')

If you want them and think they're great, I encourage you to make them up yourself. Nothing wrong with that. Then I won't have to call them hogwash. I just don't consider them a good investment in the page count.

I'm not really a fan of non-pc super heros. aka epic level good npcs.

Me neither, at least not the way that Forgotten Realms used to present them.

If they existed in such a way that they were de-emphasized, that would be one thing.. but I usually found them to:

A.) Steal PC thunder
B.) engender inadequacy ("we'll never fight evil gods, rescue demi-gods and otherwise save the universe like Harper/Jedi/lEEt epic NPC heroes")
C.) minimize the PC's otherwise heroic efforts. ("it was only an insane wizard we stopped, it wasn't really a big deal or nuthin'")

I think those early campign developers forgot something when they extolled the exploits of high level NPC good guys, and that is "Nobody plays a fantasy role-playing game to feel like a loser. The real world is quite capable of doing that on it's own."

Players love to feel that they really accomplished something, so I prefer opportunities for them to earn their way into those epic roles.. not be minor bit players in someone else's cosmic struggle..

And when it happens, and it all comes together.. those players will remember that campaign for years to come. That's a good feeling for a GM.

Mandor?

As in Mandor Sawall?

:)

I thought you would have gone for something more subtle, sir.

Thanks for the support of the idea guys!

To Paizo: Please think about it. Even if isn't feasible to sell paper battlemats yourself (and maybe it is?), giving us the means of printing our own is a great asset.

I think it makes a great incentive for subscription sales. The PDF of the book itself is great, but this would be something invaulable, and not really being done by anyone else.

Nah, Lilith's right.. it's not work safe or board appropriate.

Here's a clue...

"Divorced Mothers I'd ......."

And don't count a small word like "to" in the acronym. Now enough of that.

Anyway, I don't mind Kyle's art in the Foreword.. in the right place and in the right context it's fine, as many have already agreed.

Jeff Laubenstein on the other hand? I tried to introduce a legitimate romantic subplot with Ameiko and one my players, and around the whole table they thought she was homely and trashy because of the art, particularly the cheesy tattoos, despite my descriptive attempts to tell them otherwise. (I wish I'd never shown them the picture).

They haven't seen the elf ranger yet.. <sigh> I'll probably not show them after the last reaction.

I agree, Mr. Laubenstein is just not ready for "Prime time."

To James, Erik, and Co.

In the Rise of the Runelord's thread we have a map discussion going. A few posters have and are continuing to make battlemaps with their own artwork and supply them to the community.

And that's awesome. From personal experience, when I rolled out a color battlemap for the first session, the players had a ball and thanked me for days.

Now I've been working on my own for the Glassworks, and am looking forward to what other people are doing with the Catacombs of Wrath and Thistletop.

Without further ado, here's my idea/suggestion:
*********************

Last night it struck me, wouldn't it be cool if I could just expand a copied image of the Glassworks and print that? Well, I tried it, and it gets fuzzy resolution, so I went back to making my own.

Then it hits me, couldn't it be blown up at your end with a clear resolution and saved at that size (one grid=1")? I dunno myself, I'm not a tech novice.

Now there might not be a market for printed copies, but I'd pay a couple bucks ($2 to $4) for a PDF file that I could print myself and at my expense. Hell, you got to make the map for the book anyway, I'm thinking formatting the map into another file wouldn't take that long or be that complicated.

ALTERNATE RELATED:

You might not want to sell large scale digital versions of the chapter maps seperate from the actual book. I can understand that, you have to move those hardcopy versions.

If re-formatting the maps to a large scale and saving them as PDF's (or another format) is not complicated or time consuming.. give them away as another "subscriber's only" benefit complete with personal watermark and permission to print by that individual. Having not only the PDF of the book, but printable scale maps directly from the books makes double the incentive for buying the book through Paizo's in-house subscription.

Just an idea...

Atrocious wrote:

September is over. October is upon us. So Paizo, can we still expect "The Skinsaw Murders" by "the first week of October"?

We can... as in it's supposed to be coming in to the office and then shipping right out to subscribers and distributors this week! I've got my fingers crossed!

Whoo hoo!

The subject line says it all. I'm excited.

Crunch can be replaced. There's been more than one kind of good Crunch invented, and I maintain that no one plays a game for the Crunch's sake-

--well.. very few people do, and those are the type of people who appreciate mathematics in their own right.

Except for those unusual folks, no one else says, "Let's play a rousing game of GURPS!" Instead they name a genre of GURPS, or the genre is implied by the members of a regular group who know what to expect. No one says, "Let's play some True20!" There's always a setting or genre.

The original poster is correct. It's all in the Fluff, baby.

Here is the reply I received:

I believe that would still be in infringement, because you're using DJ art.

Note that, for example, all the maps made for Goodman Games by Benwax
use only user art or DotW art.

When DJ changed ownership, we were told there may be changes to the
EULA to make it less restrictive, but I haven't heard anything since.

My reply to them:

Thank you for the reply! I confess that's a bit disappointing, but I understand why the EULA is in place.

If you have an opportunity to ask the 'new' Powers To Be if there's going to be a change, I'd much appreciate it. I think this an application of the application that users would enjoy (and thereby draw more users).

I'll let people know in the meantime.

***************

On a side note, I'm still interested in Dundjinni, to make maps for myself, but this does diminish it somewhat that I can't share it for free on my own site while giving them an advertisement.

But I was wrong in what I said earlier, and I wanted to clarify.

I'd like to see their new owners review this EULA.

As far as the mill map that can be distributed and printed anywhere. I've made sure to utilize only art made from users and myself so there is no breach in the Dunjinni user agreement.

Regarding the maps that people are making to duplicate existing maps within Pathfinder that may be a sticky wicket.

Greg Volz
Natural Twenty Gaming

My understanding of the Dundjinni rules regarding this.. (and they have a post with 7 different possible scenarios regarding this)... is...

They don't want you posting maps you've made of other people's published work on their forums.

They don't want you using their program to develop your own material for sale, without a license agreement.

(and this is the one relevant to this issue)

If you make a map from a published adventure and post it on your own site (not theirs), if it is for a free download (and absolutely not for resale), and it has their compass rose symbol on it.. that's okay.

Hmmm... after all that, here is their word on it:

http://www.dundjinni.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=4586&PN=1

I'm looking at Example 7. There is still some ambiguity to it, but reading all the examples I think it comes down to whether:
A.) You try to sell it.
B.) Is it on your site, and is it a free download with their logo attached.

Now I'm not a lawyer, but that's what I get out of it.

Hell, I'll ask them very specifically right now.

EDIT:

I just posted this on their forums, pending an answer:

Here is a question for ya... and I am going to be very explicit:

If I create a map from an adventure (published by Paizo for example) using Dundjinni art.. and:

1.) I post it on my own personal website
2.) It's a completely free download
3.) It contains Dundjinni's compass rose symbol
4.) The adventure publisher, Pazio, offers no objection

Is this infringement?

The need for clarification is because there is some vagueness concerning whether the restricition about posting copyrighted materials on Dundjinni forums, and the requirement to have a license for re-sale are the same issue.

Many people wish to convert publish adventures into battlemaps. They wish to share their work completely free of charge, and make no money off of them whatsoever. They respect that you don't want it on Dundjinni's own forums. Does this constitute infringement?

Im not Erik obviously..nor am I very knowledgeable in the buisness...

But to answer your question...Yes. I think 4th edition does have a chance of not being successful.

4th edition is going to tear the current D&D community apart in terms of those who will convert to 4th and those who will remain with 3rd or just quit the hobby in frustration.

(I'm the same Watcher that posted earlier, but I guess I need a new alias to have an avatar icon)

And this is actually a reply to many of the posts that I've read, but I wanted to call Jason's post out in particular.

There is division out there right now, and even though I took the stance that I follow the campaign and not the rules... I know some people that would love to see the crunchy aspect of the game changed.

Coming out of retirement and joining the 3.5 community late, I saw interesting things.. all these classes and prestige classes. A lot of people wanting to start with Rogue and then changing (confessing later that it was for the skill points, which I had not even noticed). In short, I heard complaints that the game didn't allow the flexibility that other games allowed.

I had one player, who couldn't join us because of schedule conflicts, who was a RedBrick Earthdawn and Shadowrun 4.0 player. He detests DnD, not for the flavor, but for the system. He has no problem at all with the old school feel, but hates the class system. He was going to play simply to play with his friends and do some high fantasy, holding his nose at the system itself.

And I think those people are going to want to flock to a new system that 'might' have the same feel that they remember, or at least might be a fantasy game that has been made better and easier with a lot of support (which WOTC will have for them to buy).

********

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate. Just remember I made my own position clear in previous posts. And I'm an old time guy who's played dozens of systems for decades. And I really do love Pathfinder.

However, if I sat back and was asked, what about DnD always made it so damn popular, I'd have to say that it's because everyone knows how to play it. It's easier to find people playing it. Not the 30 year tradition. Sorry Erik. On the other hand, there is a tradition, and some people really do care as evidenced on this board. But the simplicity and ease of the rules, and the commonality of it in a gaming community is arguable the cause of that. It's just a fact you're going to find more DnD players than you will find Exalted, Sorceror, Mutant and Masterminds, Dragonborn, and god only knows Nobilis. Is that because of the 30 year tradition, or is it because the darn kids all pick it up really quick and it's got lots of cool treasures and monsters?

You see what I mean? It's a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" scenario. Is the 30 year tradition the reason for it's success? Or that it's always been an easy common denominator among gamers, and thus developed a 30 year tradition?

I have to say, I think 4th edition will be a success. I will meet the nay-sayers half-way and say "it might not be the success that WOTC is hoping for." And if it is not the success that WOTC is hoping for, the reason will be that they weren't discerning in what needed to be changed, and what didn't need to be changed.

But as a previous poster said, changing the fluff might just be all about IP control.

ugh.. no reply from Catdragon in e-mail, and no more map goodness.

I may be driven to buy Dunjinni myself. The folks had too much with those color maps.

Out of curiousity, what software was used to create the maps in the actual book?

Bump for hopeful desperation for more maps?

To keep the post from being more than just spam, does anyone have any opinions regarding the two mentioned programs CC3 and Dunjinni?

Pros and Cons? One over the other?

James, how about a progress report of when it's going to be ready instead?

:)

It's almost October!

If that's not enough.. isn't Magnimar supposed to get a support article in this one? I know a map is on the Blog, how about a little non-spoiler text?