Zynete's page

You know what, I don't think any good can come of discussing this on our site. Really rather not have the schadenfreude, snark, point-and-laugh, misinformed speculation, snide comments, veiled insults, flags or the rest of it. If you want to talk about this, do it somewhere else.

Removed some insults. Your mom thinks edition war insult jokes are stupid.

I didn't want to post in any of the existing threads because they've mostly become deadlocked around folks saying the same things to each other without much chance of interesting dialog. So I felt that the chances that readers would see my comments would be better if I started a new thread.

First, there's no hard & fast definition of "griefing" that will satisfy everyone. For some, any limit to their activities is too restrictive, and to others, any non-consensual interaction is too permissive. Where you fall on that continuum is really a matter of personal choice, not definition.

I can tell you that in Pathfinder Online you will be involved in non-consensual interaction with other players on a regular basis.

That is not to say that unlimited poor behavior will be tolerated. There are three ways that behavior can be limited:

1: Game Mechanics - the game itself can establish limits on what can and cannot be done. It can also establish punishments for doing things that are considered poor behavior even if it does not outright restrict them.

2: Community Management - the humans who watch over the game can act to force certain kinds of behavior to cease when they are petitioned for help. Those same humans can escalate the matter to the point where a repeat or particularly egregious offender's accounts are closed.(*)

3: Social Engineering - the humans who play within the game can act to enforce certain norms of behavior by providing and withholding access to shared community resources in response to character behavior.

It is not our intention to create an "anything goes" world where players are subjected to endless scams, ganks, and immersion breaking behavior.

It is our intention to apply some of the real world lessons learned in our major cities by focusing on "broken windows" - that is, stopping minor transgressions of our social behavior policies before they escalate out of hand. It is my opinion that doing so will reduce antisocial behavior substantially. People who want to be anonymous jerks will not get much pleasure out of being quickly and unceremoniously silenced, booted, or banned. Without the ability to encite "rage & tears", those folks will have no good reason to haunt Pathfinder Online.

All three kinds of tools will be used to help enforce our social behavior policies. But the meta-rule will be: "If you're acting like a jerk, we'll feel free to give you a time-out lasting from minutes to forever without appeal and without warning."

I'm especially concerned with ensuring that new players are able to learn how to play the game, gain some mastery of basic gameplay features, have some fun, and have a great experience without having to worry about someone intentionally ruining it for them by scamming them, killing them, taunting them, or otherwise disrupting their attention which should be focused on dealing with the sensory overload of going into a new virtual world.

I'm secondarily concerned with ensuring that people who choose a low risk / low reward course of play are able to do so without regular interruption by those seeking to gain enjoyment from interfering with them as they go about their business.

What I want is for people to clearly know that the more risk they accept, the higher the rewards they may be able to achieve, and to be able to assess the risk of the area they are in and the actions they are taking with reasonable ease. Nobody should be surprised to discover they're in a PvP free-for-all subject to being attacked by hordes of well-prepared opponents. On the other hand, it should be clear to those same players that if they really want to find those super-rare resources, or track down that really tough monster, or explore beyond a border claimed and patrolled by hostile forces, that they're accepting the risk that entails.

Players should be able to operate in an area of risk/reward that makes them feel most comfortable.

Players should also be free from metagame harassment of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, political or religious affiliation, favorite college football team, or participation in other MMOs. Taking someone's off-line world into our on-line world will be totally unacceptable and we'll have a very low tolerance for those who break those rules.

(*) Be aware that on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. It's impossible to ban a PERSON from Pathfinder Online because its very easy for one human to impersonate many different players - and people can and will do so for all sorts of reasons. The best we can do is try to connect accounts together when we believe they're controlled by individuals who have been excluded from the game, but that is never a perfect solution. The same gay-bashing, neo-nazi thug who insulted your mother and your pet (and then got banned) could be playing the character you're conducting extensive trade with or even following as leader of your party or Settlement. There's just no way to be sure and there are individuals who take a pathological glee in living those kinds of fragmented disparate lives.

Love all the feedback on these threads!

A thing you should consider before posting your ideas is "what happens in a world where tens of thousands of people can react to the idea all at once"?

Let me give you an example. If you said "it would be cool if you left your mount standing outside a dungeon while you went exploring - because I'd like to be a mount thief who specialized in finding abandoned mounts and taking them", this is what the emergent behavior would be on the server: Nobody would ever leave a mount standing outside a dungeon.

That is, the ABILITY to do the thing you think is cool will cause all the other players to modify their behavior to avoid letting you do that thing. So you never get the cool payoff inherent in your concept but every other player on the server has to suffer by not using mounts. Obviously, that's not good design. :)

MMOs have been around long enough for many of these problems to have manifested in actual games. Players are fiendishly good at figuring out how to take ideas that seem "rational" or "realistic" and twist them in ways that utterly destroys the quality of the experience for most of the other players.

I'll give you a couple of examples so you can see the kinds of emergent things that happen.

In Ultima Online, you could build a house virtually anywhere. Eventually, people figured out that the real value of houses was not to use them as dwellings, but to use them as walls, since if you built them close enough together they were impassable. The result were large areas of the map that were inaccessible to anyone who didn't have the ability to bypass the walls of houses. Once a single group did this, every other group went into a land grab mode trying to seal off as large a territory as they could before competition from other groups interfered. The result was a map that turned into a chaotic maze of house-walls.

In Darkfall, every item you carry can be looted if you die. Since killing a single, fully equipped character is a much better source of getting good gear than grinding your way through dungeons or doing the resource harvesting/crafting cycle, it quickly became the norm for small groups to prey on anyone who dared to leave the safe confines of a city wearing decent gear. The result was that players started to play naked characters with a concentration on spells instead of items to do damage and the whole player economy and PvE adventure content died.

In Warhammer Online, high level characters could become tagged for retribution if they attacked low level characters. So gangs of low level characters would swarm high level characters engaged in PvE, eventually forcing the player of the high level character to "accidentally" hit one of them (or die from whatever monster was attacking them). Instantly the mob of low level characters would gang up on the now "criminal" high level character and kill it, getting rewards for doing so. Being a gang of low level characters was effectively a free pass to violate the games balance against PvP, at the expense of people who had put in the time to create high level PCs.

So when you're suggesting an idea, do these things first:

1: How will this work if 50 people have to all do it in series or in parallel?

2: How would a smart player who wanted to abuse this rule exploit it to cause someone else pain?

3: What kind of behavior would naturally emerge in a world where your rule was implemented - what's the effect of your cause?

Aardvark Barbarian wrote:

I haven't played in any TT where PvP was common or glorified, and most that do are complained about as bad tables. So, why is it that as soon as the game goes electronic, PvP is expected to be the norm of it? Just because the other MMO's do it? Why don't we want to see an MMO become as close to PF as possible, instead of Golarion becoming as close to other MMO's as possible?

Um... I believe we're running into a terminology problem here. You keep saying "PvP this and PvP that" when you should be saying "Character vs character." A Character is a character is a character, whether it's played by the DM, by an AI, or by a Player. The only difference is in the amount of depth behind that character.

A player has a LOT more mental acumen to dedicate to a single character than a DM does who had to split it among the whole world, and is going to be a lot deeper and more 'real' than some AI program.

PvP is expected to be the norm, because Character vs Character is the norm. Every character has goals, dreams, and ambitions. Stand in the way of that at your peril.

No kyrt, PVP is very precise. The goal for that kind of player is to hurt the player, not the character. The character is an instrument for that kind of players, and that is part of the reason why it is so easy for them to grief. There is no real attachment to the character beyond his mechanical efficiency. So, as long as they get the goal of hurting the player, damaging their character is irrelevant as long as they can get replacement or mend it back.

If the party is in agreement, then they are flagging the style of game they want to play. They aren't looking for soulful redemption arcs. They are here to conquer and claim.

You might feel they are missing out, but if they're having fun then more power to them. It just means you'll have a bit of extra work to introduce friendly NPCs, particularly ones that work with the PC's way of thinking.

My group is about evenly split between diplomats, and executioners but the person who is now Duke makes the final decisions re: the lives and deaths of bandits and monsters.

Ultimately, if you don't like the way the PCs are playing, then you should have a conversation with them. Tell them you feel they are missing out on story options and quest lines because they are slaughtering their way through the AP. That while they are free to play as they wish, it impacts your fun as potential NPCs that you get to run are simply slaughtered wholesale. It's your game too, and as long as you promise to give them some unrepentant bandits and monsters along with the other kind they might be willing to compromise a little.

Never resort to IN-GAME methods to change player behaviour, it only leads to hurt feelings and frustration.

Clearly we need to hire some of these guys to instruct us on proper duck herding.

SuperSlayer wrote:

When 4th edition came out Gary Gygax tried to bust out of his grave.

wasn't he still alive then?

Why do you think he was trying to get out of the grave? :)

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

The 4 points.

I answered all of your points in a word document but instead of posting them I am going to point out exactly what I mean when I say 4e was designed with the MMO in mind.

See, the thing is, I do think you have some points here. It is quite likely they did want to attract folks who played WoW, or even saw them as already part of their target audience of "fantasy RPG players". And in terms of specifics, pointing at the terminology is perhaps a lot closer to a genuine point than all of the other ones made thus far.

But you didn't hop in to say that - you hopped in to say that Sissyl's specific post was "valid criticism", and that nothing of what they said has been "proven wrong". I challenged you to support that.

You are in fact saying that you have done so, but are not willing(?) to post them?

Your claim that 4E was designed with the MMO in mind? I can accept that as a statement. I don't necessarily agree with the extent of it, I don't think it was a primary influence, but I am absolutely confident it was something they considered during the design of the game.

If you want to have that be your point, I can totally understand where you are coming from. But the second you say, "Also, I think Sissyl has completely valid concerns that no one has adequately addressed" - despite many people doing so - or, "I have responses to all those points but I don't feel like sharing them"...

...you come off as, not trying to make a genuine point, but instead just trying to disagree for the sake of doing so. And totally undermines any actual point you might make.

I never once said I don't like the game because of it, nor did I say that is what made the game bad.

Sure - but others have. Sissyl is clearly portraying it as a bad thing. (Without actually saying why). Others, earlier, said that 4E was like a simple video game, an FPS, a hack-and-slash all about combat and the grind, while 3.5 is all about detail and story and the things they like.

Those sort of attitudes are what many players of 4E feel are incorrect, and worth debating. And unfortunately, most mention of video games tends to get used as shorthand for those attitudes.

I have been told by authority the game was designed with MMO's in mind for accessibility.

Yeah, but even when pushed, you seem to admit that they didn't actually go into any detail, nor can you point to any specifics as to what that even means.

That's the problem, again. Saying a game is "video gamey" has too many possible meanings. Do you mean it is like a specific video game? Do you mean it uses certain conventions of video games? Do you mean it is a form of entertainment delivered via an electronic console or computer system?

Because the last one is technically what you are saying, while self-evidently also clearly not applicable. So one is left to try and figure out what the meaning is. And, half the time, the person making the statement themself does not even know - they are just repeating it as a nice sound-bite that they heard elsewhere.

Here is what I think happened. WoTC bought TSR because they were full of people who loved what I will call Traditional Table Gaming (TTG)

Hasbro bought WoTC because they were full of people who like making a lot of money from Magic: The Gathering.

Hasbro said to WoTC, all these MMOGs are making a ton of money, why isn't the DnD one making a ton of money. And they explained all the ways that 3.5 doesn't translate well into a computer game.

And Hasbro said "Fix that. We want people to subscribe to services and get monthly fees, like WoW. And you are flushing money down the drain with all that OGL stuff. Why would they buy the books if you give the content away for free..."

Ok, 1) From everything I've ever seen about WotC, Hasbro doesn't get remotely close to involved on a level like this.

2) Do you know what did translate well into a computer game? 3rd Edition. Into many computer games. INCLUDING AN MMO.

3) Guess what the core of the 4E system is? The same table-top rules and mechanics that the game has always been based on. With many changes made... to improve the game, in the view of the designers, and not to turn it into something that looks like a video game.

And so 4E was born. A closed system that integrates well with subscription services. A system for the casual gamer. Only problem, the casual gamer isn't the money in the market.

Ok, none of this even makes any sense. 4E is not a closed system - it has had dozens of sourcebooks released for it. A subscription - something that is, inherently, a bonus package for dedicated gamers - is almost the exact opposite of a system for casual gamers.

And finally, from everything we understand, the subscription has been quite successful.

I think Mike Mearls is a good guy, and I think he loves Traditional Table Gaming. And I hope Hasbro is realizing that they don't understand the market they were trying to exploit.

Hasbro doesn't get involved on that level! No market was trying to be 'exploited'! That word doesn't mean what you think it means!

ALL THE GAME DESIGNERS AT WOTC LOVE TRADITIONAL TABLE GAMING!!

4e isn't "bad". It's just not that good. It's no better than a ton of other Third Party Publishers products. It was a clear money grab built more on "how can we get more money from this market" rather than "How can we improve the game"

Ugh. Except that literally every single change they made was aimed at addressing specific issues many gamers had. Every single one was intended to improve the game. And, yes, they absolutely hoped it would make money - they are a company! Do you know how they intended to have it make money? By making it the best game they could make!

Now, you might feel that some of the issues they addressed didn't need it. Or disagree with their exact changes. Or been offended by the marketing or timing or whatever.

But insisting that it is just a money grab, insisting that those of us who enjoy the game are just suckers or poor gamers or whatever new accusation you want to lobby our way?

Is just wrong, and aggravating, and founded in claims that have been disproven time and time and time again.

But I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that 4e was made with the goal of "improvement" over 3.5 more than "increased profit" over 3.5.

Only because you are a biased individual who actively dismisses the opinions and preferences of other gamers, and who believes that the game designers of 4E are 'corporate overlords' rather than dedicated gamers with a deep and abiding love for the hobby.

Seriously, I feel that 4E improved the game. I can point to the exact changes made and why WotC made those changes, and why I feel that they are an improvement. (Or, in some cases, why I feel they aren't, or sacrificed more than they should have.) But in no case do I see a single change that wasn't rooted in a desire to improve the game.

You don't have to like them. But insisting that I don't have the right to like them myself - or that if I like them, it must be because I enjoy simplicity and video games and mindless combat, or whatever - is just insulting.

Ugh.

Once again that is the part that is laughable. That is precisely my point. I really do not see that much hate for 4e going on in these forums.

First statement: I think Scott is out of line for being so insistent that the '4E-haters' are the sole culprits of the 'edition wars'. I do tend to agree that, in my experience, they have been more vocal than the opposition. But I have also seen shameful behavior from those who are anti-PF or insultingly zealous in their defense of 4E. (For the reference, Scott is not one of those people, and those who claim he is are fooling themselves). I do think that he has gone too far, at least in this thread, at trying to call you out for simply insisting that there are folks on both side who have been a problem.

Second statement: And all that said, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. There are many very great people in these forums. And there are many PF fans who are calm and civil in their criticism of 4E, and there are many who play both games and can celebrate the values of both.

And there are others who make this place incredibly unwelcoming and hostile and unfriendly in their behavior and trolling and hate. I have on many occasions considered quitting these forums at seeing some of the comments, or seeing certain mods who actively allow such behavior even once it has been flagged.

You think it is "laughable"? How much do you post on these forums? Have you seen the sort of flak Scott gets, despite defending 4E and PF in equal measure? Have you seen how some people actively harass and attack him on these boards, to his face or behind his back? And you think that is worth laughing over?

Seriously, you want to say that there are unpleasant folks on both side of the board who have made the situation worse for all of us? It is probably true - there are jerks in every walk of life, in every hobby, and they make things unpleasant no matter what cause they champion.

But if you want to deny our experiences and dismiss that which regular posters of this board have certain seen time and time again? Not cool, and not even remotely helping your argument.

I never see hate in the game stores. Where are the haters at the cons? It is a classic case of bias being demonstrated.

I haven't run into it myself, not being at cons as often these days. I have friends who have, and one who regularly brings back horror stories or seeing tables harassed. It usually isn't by the full pack of PF players - it is usually one or two folks who feel the need to give folks a hard time. But they are definitely there.

What really gets me, what I loathe most of all, are hearing the stories about people who are interested in the hobby and thinking of trying it out, and have been driven away by this sort of behavior. Who walk up to the counter to check out a 4E book, and have someone walk up to them and tell them how much it sucks, and so they slowly back away and dismiss D&D entirely. Or seeing a positive article about D&D in a mainstream publication, and seeing the comments filled with folk who insist on deriding 4E and those who play it.

You don't see it? That's great. But it most definitely exists, and is very, very bad for the hobby as a whole.

I don't like the 4e style there is no secret of that. it is not however because it used video game sensibilities to achieve its design. There is however a different design philosophy and perhaps play style difference in 4e. 4e did not fit my playstyle.

If I tell you 4e fits your play style, and I do not like 4e, HOW is that offensive? I am not a fan of the design philosophies in 4e. How does that mean I think 4e players have the WRONG philosophy?

Because it is you trying to declare what my play style is, and usually being wrong about it.

What precisely do you feel the design philosophies in 4E are? What precisely is the play style that you feel it caters to?

As a player of 4E, I feel that it caters to... the exact same type of roleplaying that D&D has always provided. There are differences, yes, but usually in specifics, not the overall approach.

Specific changes were made, with 4E, to address specific concerns that gamers had. No video game sensibilities were used to achieve its design. There was no shift to a "video game" design philosophy or play style.

Not liking the game is one thing. Trying to tell others why they like it is something else entirely.

I get there are people that will condescend. And I did to professor above out of frustration more than anything, but when I sit in the game store and give the younger DM's advice on how to DM encounters, I do not tell them, you know the system is so easy a bird could do it. People want to play it. I tell them how to confront rules problems in general, and how to motivate. I am actually quite proud of the younger DM's that have established 4e campaigns with my help.

I don't think you are specifically out to insult the 4E crowd. But I think you do have this bias, this view of how things are. You don't like the game, and others do, so you need to invent reasons why that might be, why they are different from you, why they aren't 'classic gamers' like you believe yourself to be. And I think that is what motivates this view... people always want to portray the opposition as different from them. I think that is the same thing here, and likely not even on a conscious level - but it is the sort of thinking that fuels the edition wars. And, yeah, is much more likely to come up online - in person, it is a lot easier to just accept that we are all gamers, and all looking for the same thing in the game.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

2) The statement itself - that 4E is designed like a video - is, as we've tried to show, fundamentally wrong. They didn't aim for better balance in 4E because they wanted it to be like a video game - they aimed for better balance because players wanted better balance. You feel they failed, or went too far, or whatever. I get that. But dismissing the genuine viewpoints of those who wanted that and are happy with what WotC did... that's poor form.

No they used those sensibilities to achieve their goal. That is different than saying it is designed like a video game. Perhaps when they wanted to balance the classes they looked at how City of Heroes does it and took cues from there.

How did they use those sensibilities to achive their goal? In what way is the idea of balancing the classes somehow intrinsic to City of Heroes rather than... instrinsic to any game that involves mechanics of any sort?

That's what I don't get. Yes, they made it a goal to balance the system. Yes, that is also something that video games often do. But you can find countless other similarities between any two games - this is something rooted in the fundamental of being a game, and not something that was drawn from one medium to another.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

3) It is not always explicitly stated, but the implication about "4E is a video game" is often trying to make specific statements about video games. Specifically, that it represents being a simpler system, less concerned about story, more focused on combat and grind and hack-and-slash, with no room for character or plot or RP. Sometimes folks just outright say this, often it is simply implied. And all that baggage is being tossed at 4E, and...

4e IS a simpler system. Even proponents say that. Saying it is a video game does not mean what you think. Mass Effect doesn't have good story? Dragon Age? Even Call of Duty?

In the other thread, the poster was focused on comparing it to first-person shooters, or to Diablo, or other games that do have a story, but are primarily focused on killing enemies. That is often the implication and, like I said, one of the reasons why tossing the term around is often going to be objected to.

In a way, though, that is part of the point - there are so many different video games out there and different approaches, that talking about 4E being "influenced by video game design philosophies" is basically devoid of meaning. There are too many possible interpretations. And often the ones that most put forward are intended to be less than flattering.

This is what I do not like.

They took the balance system of these video games and ported it over to table top. For me that does not work. It spoiled the game.

The influence is there, to deny that is folly.

And yet, I'm denying it. The balancing of 4E has nothing to do with Dragon Age or Mass Effect or Diablo. They took the existing game, and tried to find a system that expanded on the spell system in a way that offered similar dynamic options to all characters.

That isn't to say it is a perfect system. But the changes were built out of the game itself, and out of a desire to improve the game, and not in any way about porting some other system over from a video game. You can still object to it, but doing so with references to video games rings hollow and undercuts any legitimate criticism you might actually offer.

What I care about is that when I state 4e has video game sensibility designs, loads of people jump on me for denigrating 4e or some nonsense like that.

Designing a game like a video game is not necessarily bad, but the play is completley different in TTG's. I see the need for the hyper balance in a video game. Especially an mMO with subscriptions. I have never seen the need to go the extreme that 4e did for a table top game.

As someone who just 'jumped on you for denigrating 4E' - and doesn't feel at all bad about having done so - I want to try, one more time, to explain why we see that statement as objectionable.

1) Because many 4E players don't like 4E 'because it is a video game'. They like it, as an RPG, and find the play exactly like a standard table-top RPG. And everytime you say, "Oh, I get that people like 4E. I don't like that style, but you guys who like it being like a video game, that's fine"... every statement like is making a lot of assumptions about the people that play the game and trying to speak on their behalf. And it is frustrating and, usually, wrong.

2) The statement itself - that 4E is designed like a video - is, as we've tried to show, fundamentally wrong. They didn't aim for better balance in 4E because they wanted it to be like a video game - they aimed for better balance because players wanted better balance. You feel they failed, or went too far, or whatever. I get that. But dismissing the genuine viewpoints of those who wanted that and are happy with what WotC did... that's poor form.

3) It is not always explicitly stated, but the implication about "4E is a video game" is often trying to make specific statements about video games. Specifically, that it represents being a simpler system, less concerned about story, more focused on combat and grind and hack-and-slash, with no room for character or plot or RP. Sometimes folks just outright say this, often it is simply implied. And all that baggage is being tossed at 4E, and thus implies that it is lacking in such things... and, thus, that those playing it either don't care about such things, or don't use such things. Which, again, is totally wrong - many 4E people play the game just like they always have. Many even find it provides more support for such things. Again, there seems to be a desire to dismiss the opposing side by speaking 'for' them, claiming that you know what they like about the system and why they play it... and those claims are usually incorrect, and often borderline insulting.

4) And, finally... I try to overlook a lot of criticism about 4E. Sometimes it is so blatantly out there it isn't worth responding to. Sometimes it is well-written and reasonable criticism which either stands on its own, or is worth discussing in detail. But when I see comments like this, they are basically coming across as misinformation. That isn't to say my goal is to try and convince you that what you are saying is wrong - that often isn't even possible, with most 'internet arguments'. But what I can do is, hopefully, prevent other folks from reading your claims and accepting them as given fact.

And so, yeah, when you toss out unsupported and dismissive comments about the game, I'm going to call you out on it.

You don't need quotes. It is painfully obvious they DID take queues from WoW. In fact it was stated during development they were trying to attract those players. The players that were the target audience since the older players were not. Good marketing choice.

I'm sure they would have been glad to get the interest of MMO players. But the target audience for 4E was the same set of gamers as before. They have made plenty of efforts, yes, to draw in the MMO crowd and add it to the game - such as by creating a D&D MMO. You know, the one that uses 3rd Edition rules.

In any case, simultaneously saying, "You don't need quotes" and "it was stated during development" while... failing to provide any context or examples of what they actually said, or why, or how it supports your point... is not the most convincing argument to make. Nor is simply claiming something to be painfully obvious without offering examples as to why.

I'll go ahead and so for you, though!

It is like WoW because it has Warlocks! Except those were around in 3rd Edition, also. Hmm. It also has Minotaurs now, who are just like Tauren! Because D&D never let you played Minotaurs in the past, and certainly doesn't have any settings in which Minotaurs are portrayed in the exact same 'honorable warriors' vein as the Tauren are portrayed in WoW!

It is like WoW cause they have roles! Just like WoW has DPS/Tank/Healer! Except that WoW drew those roles from D&D, and all 4E was doing was formalizing the Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric dynamic in easy terminology, which also helps make other classes more accessible. And 4E moved away from actually needing to have one specific configuration for your party, something common in both MMOs and in earlier editions.

It is like WoW because different classes have different builds, just like talent trees! Because we've never had any sort of options within classes previously, and having WotC actively support different archetypes and concepts and make them distinct from each other is somehow a bad thing!

It is like WoW because WotC made it a goal to balance the classes and puts out errata to fix unabalanced material in existing content. Because no one ever cared about balance until video games came along, and all the players that did ask for more balance and an actual effort to provide continual support for the game... don't count, for some reason, because you don't like them or something.

It is like WoW because when characters get injured, they can just sit down and burn through consumables until healed up and ready to charge back into battle! Oh, wait, that's 3rd Edition, ignore that one.

Look, in the end, you can absolutely find similarities between WoW and 4E. And between WoW and 3rd Edition, and earlier editions, and many other RPGs as well - since most of those elements are arising from shared design space, or because WoW and other games developed out of the entire RPG mindset pioneered by D&D. Of course there will be similarities.

And of course there will be similarities in approaches to the game, because both companies are trying to make a game that customers will enjoy, and making fun games for nerds in different mediums will still often involve the same approaches.

And even aside from all that, there may even be specific elements that were indeed inspired by WoW, either directly or subconsciously - and sometimes, that won't be a bad thing.

But if you have specific elements you object to because they 'come from WoW', feel free to point them out, and demonstrate why you object to them, and why the reason you object to them is specifically tied to their origin in a video game.

Making 4e like a video game is not necessarily bad. However video games do it better, that is the problem.

Fortunately, 4E was not made to be a video game, and was instead designed to be a tabletop RPG. Some folks like some of the changes, others did not. But these sort of throwaway, unsupported, repeatedly-disproven statements about it being a video game, and its audience only being video gamers, are silly and largely irrelevant to any useful discussion.

And, honestly, do quite a lot to undercut your stance - which I had previously been supporting! - about you not being out to further the edition wars.

Reducing all classes to power classes like the wizard is just one design element they used. They might as well write the powers as cooldown times instead of uses per day.

It is a design change they made because players wanted more balance between wizards and fighters. Because players wanted fighters who could do cool things too. Because they found that many of the things that folks most liked, and found most distinguished classes, were unique abilities they had - like rage, bard song, rogue special abilities, etc - and this was a way to merge that with the spell system and ensure everyone had such abilities.

Now, maybe you don't like that approach. Maybe you might have liked the ability if everyone wasn't on the exact same approach, or if it was presented with a more dynamic layout, or if the powers were not quite as plentiful, or if classes had fewer options but more distinct ones, or if characters had the option to take more simplified choices.

There are any numbers of reasons why you might feel it is not the system you want to use. Or why you might have liked it at the start, but felt that it has been ill-served by too many new options, too much errata, or other specific design decisions.

But what it has precisely nothing to do with? Video games. No more so than the previous spell system! Or any other previous daily powers that existed, or duration based effects like rage or smite or bard song or the countless supernatural and spell-like abilities offered by Prestige Classes and items.

It was founded in specific player concerns and attempted to address what they felt was an issue with the game, and one many people cared about. You can feel that they failed in their attempt. You can feel that it wasn't actually an issue in the first place, or even that it was an issue, but they went too far trying to fix it.

But dismissing it out of hand without any evidence or detail to support your claims, and doing so in a fashion that is dismissive and condescending to the people that play the game, is petty and childish... and, ultimately, wrong.

In video game terms Pathfinder is a complex strategy game like the Civilization series, many layered, a bit complex, perhaps not as easy to just pick up and go, but rewarding and re-playable.

4E is a first person shooter, easy to pick up, very straightforward and a lot of fun, but...well...you are here to basically do one thing, aren't you.

I said from the beginning that 4e was created for computer integration, with simplification and equalization following the classic Diablo/WoW chain.

And people like those things.

But once you get tired of hack and slash...well...don't we all pull out Civ?

See, these folks tend to bother me much more than those who are just frothing at the mouth and cursing out WotC - since those tend to be easy to dismiss.

Well-written and calm posts like this, which nonetheless present a condescending, insulting, and incorrect point as though it was natural fact, are much more problematic.

I find 4E better for roleplaying, for setting building, for exploration and detail. There are definite areas where trade-offs have been made - for me, both as a player and a DM, those trade-offs help avoid the 'min/max' mindset that I felt permeated 3rd Edition. It made it possible to focus on actual character concepts and development, and not worry about 'winning' the game as 3rd Edition seemed so focused on. The greater focus on narrative over mechanics makes for more robust story-telling and more immersion in the story for the players. The specifics of the core setting and cosmology resonate more for me on the level of myth and fantasy than the potentially dry 'histories' of earlier settings.

Now, for whatever reasons, many other folks have not run into those problems with 3rd Edition. Or they find the greater simulationism of 3rd Edition to make for a more intense experience. Or they simply prefer the Great Wheel vs the Astral Sea, or Greyhawk vs Nerath, or whatever - and all of that is perfectly fine.

But then some folks, like ciretose, or sunshadow, or however many others, go on to say, "My preferences are because I like complexity and storytelling and RP, and you like 4E because it is a simple first-person shooter based on Diablo/WoW, and you don't do anything but combat."

You don't have to like 4E, you don't have to find its specific approaches useful for your games. But these claims just are completely ungrounded in reality. The standardization of rules in 4E wasn't to simplify it for a computer game, it was to make those rules easier for DMs to use. It features more than combat, and has some of the best books out there for giving guidance on roleplaying and storytelling in the game. It has a fantastic diversity of classes, now more than ever - and I personally find it the best edition out there for supported a robust array of viable character options, and ability to really customize nearly every aspect of a character. And many products, especially the most recent, are filled with tons of background and flavor, with interesting monsters and places and organizations. It has some crappy adventures, but also some awesome ones - like most editions.

It is no more, by default, 'hack and slash' than any other edition is. That, as always, comes down to the DM. In my case, I find that the specifics of 4E make it easier to run a more story and character-based game - as I'm currently doing with a Ravenloft game. I am certainly using a number of house rules, and I've introduced some items that aren't really standard fare for 4E. It is, in a way, a blend of 3rd Edition and 4E. But 4E is, by far, the most easier base for me to start from - and many of the very things I'm doing in my game are directions the system is expanding in anyway (rare items, curses, etc).

You "said from the beginning that 4e was created for computer integration" - and I suspect that because you said it would be so, you have only been able to view it as such. In actually, 4E was created for tabletop roleplaying gamers, just like every edition before it. The innovations and changes it made were not a fan of everyone, sure. But the intent behind them was absolutely to make the best game the designers could make.

You might not agree with their success, or whether the game is right for you, but it is simply petty to insist that the designers were trying to make a video game rather than an RPG, or insist than anyone who likes the game only does so because they want mindless hack-and-slash.

High-damage builds aren't really my forte, but this I can do.

I actually worked on an idea similar to Davor's a couple months ago when considering a replacement character for our PF campaign. My original idea doesn't include the Steel Falcon, but I thought it'd add nicely.

Right-hand Manny
Human Paladin 4 / Cavalier 4 / Steel Falcon 2
Oathbound Paladin: Loyalty
Musketeer AND Honor Guard Cavalier (just 'cause guns are fun)
Order of the Star, Paladin of Torag

Manny's a good guy and the consummate bodyguard. It's hard to catch him unaware, and he can provide a huge boost to one ally. By sacrificing his own attacks, he can bolster one party member's AC by +14 in any given round, for up to 4 rounds (and grants a +6 sacred bonus to that person's saving throws as well).

-- He selects an ally as his ward (for Honor Guard) and to give his Oath of Loyalty to; this grants a +6 sacred bonus to AC, +1 dodge bonus to AC, and +6 sacred bonus to saving throws for that ally.

-- When adjacent to any ally (including his ward), three times per round (due to Combat Reflexes) Manny can use attacks of opportunity to bolster his ally's AC by +5, combining Superior Aid with the Intercept ability.

-- When channeling positive energy using the variant, Manny grants all targets he chooses (deducting up to 6 targets who are not allies) a +2 channel bonus to AC until the end of Manny's next turn. He can only do this 4x/day, using all his lay on hands abilities.

+14 AC bonus: +6 sacred, +1 dodge, +5 aid another, +2 channel. Without channel, +12 AC bonus and those will last for up to 1 minute. Don't forget the +6 to saves.

In addition, Manny can provide a way for allies to get away from harm via the Escape Route teamwork feat, can bolster his own attacks via Calling or reroll any one d20 roll each day, and pretend to be a bard w/ inspire courage for up to 8 rounds per day.

He's got good HP, DR 2/--, great saves, Perception +12 and Diplomacy +17, can speak quite a few languages, and he'll even take a hit for the ward via In Harm's Way if he has to.

It sounds like the best thing is to fudge the dice, HP, etc. at the end of the combat and just declare the target dies in combat? Is that sort of fudging allowed?

Since nobody at my tables ever tries to go to this length, I guess that means there are a lot of people bleeding to death in my games :)

It should would be a shame if the Druid's animal companion got spooked by the prisoner's actions somehow and ate his face.

Ultimately it sounds like you have player personality conflicts, translating into character personality conflicts which you should address so everyone can get on the same page. It sounds suspiciously like someone is being a jerk and using 'role play' as a cover.

Some groups are fine if you want to play Belkar. With others, having a homicidal maniac planning to murder them in their sleep (even if it is 'in the name of roleplaying') just isn't any fun.

Now, there are various ways to address the problem. Some just do so by enforcing in-game consequences. (We caught you trying to murder us, so... we're tying you up and leaving you for the orcs to find.) Others might rely on DM fiat. (Let's drop a magical geas on you so you can't kill anyone when in a city.)

But I think it is just as reasonable approach to have the group talk things over and... you know, agree to not play characters like that.

I think that's all the article is recommending. There are plenty of ways to play adversarial characters without having active in-party conflict.

If you do have characters who are so fundamentally at-odds that they can't co-exist, that probably means more closely examining why the assumed scenario for the campaign allowed you to play such wildly divergent characters. Likely requiring, again, a solid talk with the other players or DMs to try and figure out how to play characters that can work together.

In this case, the point is that Neverwinter is an environment that features various factions, such as Drow, in a position where they are quite potentially player characters. If you choose to play someone who must murder drow on sight... that's a choice you are making, and one that could weaken the enjoyment of the game for others.

Note that it isn't saying you must love drow - indeed, some healthy adversity can add to the fun. But finding ways to making the party able to function as a party - even if that means evolving your character out of a black-and-white mindset - is hardly a bad thing.

Some groups, of course, thrive on inter-party conflict. But many prefer to avoid it, especially given IC conflict can rapidly spread to OOC conflict.

There are plenty of types of 'roleplaying' which many groups would prefer to avoid. The thief who steals from other PCs, the barbarian who constantly gets the group into fights, etc. Some groups are fine with that.

For those that aren't, the best response is most likely to talk it over and try to compromise, and settle on some shared expectations for PCs... rather than just let it keep happening, and frustrating more and more players, because it is ok as long as it is done "because that's just what my character would do!"

Note the word "sometimes".

Using the OP's example, if you're going for PvP, then that should be fine. If you're trying to build a party that will work together, then maybe one of them should consider playing a different character.

Ultimately, the game is about having fun, right? If not, what is the point? If roleplaying is fun for you, then by all means. But if you create a character who, when roleplayed "correctly", ends up just being a jerk to everyone else, then it's probably not going to be much fun for the rest of the group.

I am confused why my questioning of Lisa, or my questioning of their transparency in their marketing plan, makes me bad, or a conspiracy theorist. I work at a huge, national company, and I see how our marketing goes. That's what marketing IS.

Your company might lie to their customers. We don't.

..stuff...

You've clearly already made up your mind about our company and our products, so I won't even bother responding to your comments. I hope you find another company who will cater to your desires.

This really isn’t a thread about any kinda sexual morality in RPGs.

A dude (assuming, I apologize) asked a question, and from what I’ve seen it was a genuine question, not some “I’m mad at the world” trollism. It’s been answered, so let’s let this RPG morality discussion die faster than it has for the dozens of other threads where this kinda talk popped up, eh?

What I’m seeing isn’t a guy shielding his family from questionably offensive material, but rather a guy that REALLY wants to play Pathfinder and is looking for something that might make it easier to play with his gaming group. As far as I’m concerned, we can bring in new players, or we can annoy them with what we think the game represents, how it can be used, or who should play it.

For the record, I have no problems with adult themes, sexual or grotesque art (even sexually grotesque art), gray morality, or obscene violence that may or may not occur in some of my favorite games and gaming materials.

I suspect you may be talking past each other.

I read Scott as saying that commercially successful mods are very rare. Which is a difficult point to argue against - those rare instances (such as counter-strike) are a product of talent, diligent work, and a lot of luck. Getting a hit like that happens, but you can't bet on it.

But, what I read Studpuffin, Ambrosia Slaad, and others saying is that it doesn't need to be the next counterstrike to be successful. They believe in the strength of the world Paizo has built, can imagine the type of video game they'd like to play, and can picture making it real. The talent represented on these boards has found success in the rpg field already - several have begun freelancing careers, published 3p supplements, and/or moved on to full time positions at Paizo. Could they make a game? Damned if I know, but I wouldn't take a bet against them, even if it is several orders of magnitude more difficult.

The discussion reminds me of an Econ joke. An Econ professor and student are walking down the street when they see a $20 bill. The student says to the professor, "Thats a $20 bill, aren't you going to pick it up?". The professor responds, " it can't be a $20 bill. If it were, somebody would've already picked it up." Can you make a career out of walking the streets finding $20 bills? No (but if you do, it was my idea, and my cut is 68%), but if you find one, pick it up.

That's my take. If I am mis-stating your position, feel free to revise it to match what I've written.

I'd rather that people who are into being jerks not have any place to post on paizo.com, actually.

Nobody is saying that a low magic item variation of Pathfinder is a bad idea. Just that the base game does assume a fair amount of magic items. The one paragraph option from UM was never intended to change that. Don't expect UC to do so either.

I certainly would love to see a chapter about running a low magic item game. I expect whenever Paizo makes a book of alternative rules (an unearthed arcana variant) they will explore the topic. I would definitely by a 3pp book about it.

But for now, you'll have to explore your own options. If you come up with a really tight system, pitch it to Kobold Quarterly or Rite Publishing or Super Genius games or any of the other fine sellers of 3PP.

It is titled Ultimate Magic.

I would think Ultimate Combat would be a better place for low-magic rules, if that.

The GMG would have been best. Maybe it will have a sequel.

Anyway, the best way to run a low magic game is to try it and see what breaks. Baby steps.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Nobody's telling you you're playing the game wrong. I'm saying the game isn't built to do that.

One of us is the developer of the game, though. You entirely have the power to change this.

And again you're ignoring that Ultimate Magic isn't the place to do that.

Again, I wrote a 3PP book about low-magic campaigns. They can be done. I've done them. But Ultimate Magic isn't the place to tell you how to run a low-magic campaign, whether for one character, one class, or every PC.

To be clear, Chris, what you quoted was my response to Todd, where I was trying to say why adding maps would not be cheaper than adding text.

As far as your comments, you are correct that creativity will give us solutions to any problem. But honestly, in this case the solution doesn't require that much thought:

Run and Report games.

If you want high-level play, Run and Report high-level games.
If you want games beyond 12th level, Run and Report Eyes of the Ten and high level modules.

The reporting system is the only objective measurable feedback Paizo actually has to what is happening with Society play. If they see a spike in general play, they will allocate more resources to putting out more (or longer) scenarios. If they see a surge in high-level play, they will adjust the release schedule to meet that need. If they see a spike in post-11th level play, they will take requests to expand the allowable levels in PFS more seriously.

If you don't feel you can rely on your GM to report the sessions, become the event co-ordinator yourself.

Can you be sure that every session is being reported, and that the picture is 100% accurate? Of course not.
But you can try to make it as accurate as possible.

The one power that is stuck in my mind (either because felt more neat than other utility powers or because I really liked having it with my wizard) was the 10th level utility power Arcane Gate. I recall it creating a pair of connected portals 20 squares from one another and being a cool "low level" teleportation power that could move the entire party.

From my faint recollections of creating characters a ways back, I am pretty certain that powers like this are uncommon and escape by flight/teleportation is much less common in 4e than Pathfinder or 3.5, but I don't believe it is a safe statement to say that a 4th edition party will certainly have to deal with any obstacle that is before them.

This is actually a lot closer to my experiences, but still not entirely fairly phrased.

First, just as powers aren't only about combat use, powers aren't the only source of activity. ^_^ There are some nifty rituals for travel, and while rituals aren't great for quick escape, you can actually make a pretty suspenseful evening out of running from/staving off a threat until a ritual can be completed. I actually cheered when we managed to get out.

Additionally, flight is a complete game changer. Against most critters that don't fly it's not an escape mechanism, it's a "win button." Float about, chuck a spell from a safe distance, shoot some arrows, whatever suits your fancy.

Additionally it's not "less common" in 4e, it's just "generally available much later as measured by raw level rather than percentage of level progression." It's not uncommon around level 5, although much more limited in time frame. Flight for a round or two for tactical use is available for quite a lot, although flying for hours or days at a time generally isn't. More widespread flight pops up again around 15, and by 20 you can fly if you've got an inclination--but it's not going to be necessary in every campaign.

To say every 4e party must deal with everything is really only part of the picture as well. They might want to consider their moves more carefully, yes... They can't go wander into the lair of the Ancient Red Demon Wyrm of Abu'Nazzat at level 9 and know that if you guys screw up, then the wizard pretty much will be able to at least save himself, and probably everyone--so you use your head instead of blindly staggering into challenges and rely on your character building/spell selection strategy to save you. Beyond that, the lack of rock/papal/scissors mechanics (Pope wins!) means that unless the DM purposefully designs an encounter to kill the party--which is not the same as challenging the party, or that challenge cannot be lethal--then there's a lot less chance of things happening like "oh damn, we haven't got the exact spell needed to invalidate this encounter, RUN!" or "Oh, I don't seem to have an appropriate DR/DI overcoming weapon on me. I don't think we can actually hurt this thing."

Running does generally happen less, but more because it doesn't need to happen as often, as opposed to "no one can run, mwa ha ha ha!" :D

Sincerely. Whoever the brainchild of this abortion was needs to be let go.

That would be me. And since I own the company, firing me would be to close up shop.

Oh, and btw, doing prepainted plastics with WizKids doesn't preclude us from doing cardboard pogs. Or metal miniatures. Or paper minis. It isn't a one or the other type of thing. Different customers want different things.

Oh, and one more note. HeroClix is doing really, really well right now for WizKids. Their new sets that have print runs that are supposed to last six months are selling out in six weeks. Or less. They have even had some sets that sold out before they were released. Doesn't sound like a failing industry to me.

-Lisa

This is a means to create various options for sorcerers that do not require a decision to be made at character creation.

Sigils
Through the mystic force of their blood, able sorcerers can focus their training so that instead of manifesting knowledge of new spells, they bond that potential arcane energy to their bodies to grant themselves heightened powers and ability. Called sigils, these special powers are as natural to a sorcerer as their own living magic, and are thus impossible for a wizard to write down in a book or a cleric to pray for.

In sorcerous writings, each sigil has a distinct symbol representing it, hence the name. Sigils a sorcerer knows appear on her body in any location she chooses. Many manifest them in aesthetically pleasing arrangements. A sorcerer may choose the colour and style of her sigils (such as flowing script, jagged angles, etc) and may choose for any or all of her sigils to be invisible without the aid of magic. Invisible sigils may be seen in the same manner as an arcane mark.

A sigil is learned in the same way that a sorcerer learns new spells and count toward the total number of spells known. Whenever a sorcerer could learn a new spell, she may select a sigil of the same level or lower instead. Additionally, when a sorcerer may exchange a spell known for a different spell, she may exchange a spell for a sigil or vice versa. A sorcerer may not have a given sigil more than once unless that sigil specifically permits taking it multiple times.

Visible sigils may be identified with a Knowledge (arcana) check with a DC equal to 15 + the sigil's equivalent spell level.

Sigils are presented in the following format:

--

Sigil Name
Level A sigil may have a level from 0 to 9. This indicates its equivalent spell level and the level of spell known that must be spent to learn it.
Prerequisites Most sigils have no prerequisites but some may require certain feats, skill ranks or knowledge of specific spells. If a sorcerer has a sigil that she is missing one or more prerequisites for, it ceases to function until the prerequisites are fulfilled.
Benefit All sigils provide a benefit to the sorcerer proportional to the level of the sigil.

--

I'll start coming up with sigils soon. In the meantime, feel free to add to this idea! Sigils are sort of like feats, and should provide passive effects. 1/day spell-likes or supernatural abilities may be okay but should at least do something different than knowing a spell.

Even Paizo's latest attempt is just another half hearted dip of the toe into the market that is going to fail.

Wanna bet?

Today we're introducing favorites for messageboard posts. They're basically an internal bookmarking system, so you can refer back to posts you want to be able to find later. Favorites are public—everybody can see what you've favorited, and can see who's favorited a post.

To favorite a post, click the "+" beneath the reply link. You can remove your favorite at any time. We show a count of how many people have favorited a post next to the "+", and if you click that text, you can see who favorited the post.

There is a new "favorites" tab on your user profile page, which shows all the posts you've favorited. There's also a tab to show you which of your posts have been favorited, including those you may have posted under aliases.

A note about the terminology: We've specifically selected "favorites" rather than "+1" or "like". Anybody can favorite a post for any reason, not just agreement with the sentiment expressed or how it was said.