alleynbard's page

[

Considering that WotC's two supported setting don't use the default cosmology, and haven't for years. I don't think it's so much an change for the sake of change, but perhaps a re envisioning to be more applicable for their planned supported worlds.

In addition, I would like to know how many DMs actually use the Great Wheel. I have not used it in a long, long time. While the changes make me whince I have ask myself "why do I care?" If the Great Wheel is of so very little importance to me why do I care if WotC changes the way the default cosmology works? My current homebrew certainly doesn't use the default cosmology and I can't see any future campaigns using it either.

Perhaps, despite my knee jerk reactions, the whole thing could stand to be cleaned up.

While it is certain that some portion of existing people will not move to 4e, I doubt that non players will now flock to the game because of 4e.

This is something I have been thinking about as well. Will 4e really entice hordes of new players to the game? And, if anyone believes that, what is it that makes you believe this is the case?

Right now I run two groups of players, both using 3.5 rules. One group consists of a long term veteran of about 15 years, a moderate veteran of about 6 years, a gamer from other systems, and newbie. The other group consists of a veteran of about 10 years, the same moderate 6 year veteran, and two newbies who have only been playing for about a year or so. I guess I have always seen it as my responsibility to introduce new players and I think I have done a pretty good job of it since the veteran of 10 years, the veteran of 6 years, and the newbies were all brought to the game by me. Outside of these two groups I have probably introduced another four people to the game in the past 10 years.

Outside of "word of mouth" advertising what does WotC really do to net new players? Putting editions aside, where are the television commercials that air during such hit shows such as Battlestar Galactica, SG-1, Doctor Who, and Heroes? Right now advertising deals struck with Blizzard could generate not only interest in D&D but with the d20 version of World of Warcraft. Wouldn't such a deal be lucrative for both companies? Does WotC still run ads in comics? What about ads in magazines that aren't explicitly gamer oriented but hit audiences that might be interested?

Unless such a marketing push is planned I don't see how anyone with his/her nose stuck in WoW or Halo 3 is even going to notice 4e's release.

A little more on topic, the changes are throwing me for a loop. The changes might be important and revolutionary. I must admit they do have a veneer of "cool" about them. But, based on what I have read so far, my opinion matters very little. As a "fence sitter" WotC is going to assume I will eventually buy 4e. At the very least they assume I will upgrade to keep current with the way games are being played in the future. They want new players and they see opportunities to achieve that end. I just don't see how hitting the reset button will achieve that end if the market they are trying to reach doesn't have it thrown in their face through aggressive PR campaigns.

Reckless wrote:

Hey,

If there's a way to arrange it, I'd like them to have a dozen Player's Guides on me. I could either ship you the money through Paypal, or if one of these wizzes at Paizo can charge my account and ship them to you... whatever. I remember the game club I was in during jr high and wished I could have formed one in my high school (unfortunately, being a Catholic High School in the mid 80s didn't exactly encourage.) Anyway, I'd be glad to donate to help your school be the Official Paizo Pathfinder Headquarters.
Stratton aka Reckless

I so appreciate the offer, and I know the kids would too. I already placed the order a little while ago though, so it's no big deal. Thanks though, seriously. :)

Is there anything else your group might need?

I know that gaming in high school helped keep me sane during that pretty rough time in my life. So much was going on in my head that having a reliable avenue of control did wonders for my self esteem. I would like to help out if I can.

I can't do too much but if you need anything it would be great to donate what I can to help your kids have a great experience.

Could I put my voice in for cancelling? I love the product but I really think I will pick each issue up individually when I have the money. I know I still have some credit from my past Dungeon/Dragon subscriptions and if I could roll that into store credit I would appreciate it. I am not sure if that is possible at this point. I would rather use that money to buy something I can use now versus purchasing an AP I don't think I will get to for at least one to two years, if ever. And I would like to be able to still support Paizo in the process.

Like I said, it looks great and I am happy with the issue I have but it is not something I am in dire need of right now.

By the way, off topic praise...Planet Stories looks great and I will be picking up every release I have seen so far. Very cool stuff guys.

D.

I have really enjoyed 3.5 but there are issues. I am apprehensive about 4e but I am willing to take a look.

Honestly, I am really looking into something like OSRIC or C&C for my future campaigns. I enjoy the systems and I want something less rules intensive that still allows me to use all my fun minis and props. I also like the old school feel of those systems with the updated OGL traits I enjoy.

Clive wrote:

Since I have heard of 4th Editions future release, I have been seeing more and more problems with my game. I was very apprehensive at first, but now I'm very excited. Reading through the Star Wars Saga rules just to see some hints on the future of D&D.

Huh. As soon as I heard 4.0 was arriving, I saw less flaws with 3.5. I guess I percieved 4.0 as a 'threat' and I've started to 'defend' 3.5. Wierd.

Like I said, I am the exact same way. I saw all the good things about 3.5 despite the claims by WotC that so much was wrong.

I am not even sure I see 4e as a threat, just the marketing that is used to sell the game so far.

Sure there are some things wrong with 3.5. I can't dispute that. I do think if you take the three core books on their own merits they create a quality game that can still be a ton of fun.

I would love to reduce prep time though I think I have a pretty good job making it as efficient as I can.

Combat could be re-worked, smoothed out, and simplified. That would take care of a good amount of my trouble. I have been kicking around some serious house rules in that regard for a long time.

I agree buffs could really stand a re-write. I didn't mind the buff durations from 3.0 all that much.

Otherwise I am generally happy with the game and I am not sorry I have dropped hundreds of dollars on the system.

I think we are seeing a surge of support for the benefits of 3.5 because of the way WotC has decided to present 4e. I know I am tired of reading previews for 4e that constantly trash 3e. Look, I've played this game for over seven years, 3.5 for 3 (?). I know the system has issues. Some of those issues are universal and some of them are based on perspective. But I know I don't need to be told how 3e handled some aspect of the game terribly and how 4e is going to clean it all up because its so cool. In most cases we don't even get a snippet on what the actual change is. I am glad they are excited for the game but just give me the details on how the system will work and I will make the judgement call on whether I think it is an improvement for my game or not. I don't like being told how silly I am for playing the game the way I do or that I enjoy 3.5.

Somewhat off topic...

What's funny is when I got back from Gencon I was pretty much excited for 4e. I thought I was ready for a new edition. Then something odd happened. Both of my groups just "clicked" and I could see how 3.5 really worked when players and DMs are invested in the game. That's a player/DM issue and not a system issue. Combined with some things I have heard I am cautious yet still interested.

QUOTE]I would like to see 4e introduce a Shadowrun-style method of iterative attacks based on initiative. Say you act on whatever your initiative is and then you get another action for every 5 less initiative. Then, to accomodate this new system, give 'fighter' types a class bonus to initiative that grows with level. Give all classes this bonus, but make it scale faster for the fighters. Maybe fighters get +1 init per level while wizards get +1 init per 4 levels.

Say, for example, Bob is a 12th level fighter in this hypothetical system. He has a Dex bonus that gives him +2 init, his class gives him +12 init, and he took Improved Initiative, which gives him +4 more. He rolls a 16 on the d20 which gives him an initiative score of 34. He can then attack on 34, 29, 24, 19, 14, 9, and 4.

In light of that analysis, maybe you should get one attack per ten points, meaning an attack at 34, 24, 14, and 4. You could, if you wished, take this a step further and allow different weapons to penalize or boost initiative accordingly. This becomes problematic with characters who want to do something other than fight, however.

I dunno. It was just a thought.

That would be kind of nifty. What you could do is extend the combat round and state at each point in the initiative you can take certain actions, perhaps either a move or a standard action. That way you can do something other than swing a weapon. Of course that would mean spellcasters would be casting more than one spell in a round in some cases but if the rounds are longer then that is not outside the realm of possibility. And with 4e at will abilities in play that makes even more sense.

My only problem with the Shadowrun round was how long to took to facilitate. I usually played the spellcaster and I rarely got more than one action a round. I spent a lot of time doing nothing.

Cutting my prep time down is pretty important to me.

Combat always seems to slow down when juggling all of those little issues I can never memorize. Streamlined combat would be nice.

Keep everything that pertains to creatures in one place. It would be nice not to search through two other books to run a creature from the MM. I want the details on how a creature's power works all in one place. I don't want to be required to refer to the DMG to understand how conditions work when it would be just as easy to place the info in the power's description. I also hate looking up spell-like abilities only to find I have to sift through two spell descriptions just to get an idea of what the creature can do. Scare is a simple yet good example of this issue that came up at my game last night.

These are things the new edition is already promising so it has my attention.

Widespread changes to story and background material could continue to sour my opinion. Honestly, as I think on it, what I would really like is setting neutral fluff that is later expanded upon by specific settings.

For example, the MM could give you the stats for the succubi, some information on what purpose they serve, provide suggestions on how best to utilize the creature, and a few loose suggestions on where these creatures would live. Let each setting explicitly determine what part of the lower planes the creature lives in because that answer might be different depending on what world you are playing in.

I guess I want an inferred setting rather than a default setting. That would make me happy. It leaves the fluffy sacred cows alone but allows DMs to change what they want. In other words, D&D successfully portrays a world that includes elves, halflings, and other fantasy races. You fight monsters such as orcs, goblins, and dragons. How those elements fit together really ought to be left DM or to setting material WotC produces. While I don't want anything as sparse as the 1e PHB and MM I don't think that kind of design philosophy is a bad thing. Give me the details and let me decide how to best utilize them. I want D&D to be even more of a toolbox.

An argument could be made that such a set of core rules might be a hurdle for new players. Then I say WotC could bundle the core books with small booklets, or provide a free online download, that details a limited setting to illustrate how these elements can work together. Each booklet would utilize material in the core book it is attached to and provide an idea how it could all be arranged into a coherent setting. In this way the default setting remains somewhat seperate from the core inferred setting. I don't know, perhaps that is a bit much to be feasible.

My final consideration won't necessarily keep me from buying the core books but it might help me decide on much I plan on investing in the new edition. The DI could really mold my thoughts on WotC as a company. Right now the proposed number of fees and charges really just sounds like a money grab on the company's part. I am trying to reserve judgment but that is really hard to do when it sounds like the subscriber fee will not be enough to utilize all of the online features. Current information indicates you also pay a fee to unlock online content for books, pay another fee to use the online table with counters, and further purchase online v-minis that come in randomized packs if you want something more than generic tokens on the virtual game table.

Overall I am cautious yet interested. I will read the material over, look closely at the meatier previews, and probably read over the SRD before I commit to the purchase.

Of course, if some of my favorite 3rd party publishers suddenly said they were exclusively producing material for 4e, that might accelerate my purchasing plans. Even in that case, I am going to approach each new release from WotC with a strong amount of consumer wariness. I want to make sure I have a good idea what the product is like before it goes onto my shelf. I made some mistakes with 3.5 when I didn't do the proper research.

I started this whole process thinking I might be ready for the new mechanics of the 4th edition. I was remainining open and optimistic despite my grave disappointment at losing Dungeon and Dragon as print magazines. Now I have reached point where I think I will simply take what I need from the SRD and go from there. It might mean buying the game it might not.

Overall though I feel the fluff aspects are more important to the game than the crunch. Do I change a number of things in my home campaign? Yes. Is my continuity exactly that depicted in mainline D&D products? No. I change things based off of my player's actions so my D&D multiversal history is different than what is core. I change little details here and there to make it fit the past history of my campaigns.

I haven't been in touch with the Great Wheel or WotC published worlds as of late because the games I have been running either change the cosmology or take place on prison planes (Ptolus) and I have not thought much of what lies beyond those prison walls. But I recently started a Savage Tide campaign so I am playing in Greyhawk with the Great Wheel. I am back in the fold so to speak.

Changing details that I know I need to alter and WotC making sweeping changes with bad reasoning are two different things. Keeping creatures and worlds inline with past D&D lore not only helps old players make the transition easier but can be designed in such a way as to keep the learning curve for new players less steep. To change fluff material dramatically without regard for continuity is not just an opportunity to play the heavy handed designer card but it also shows a certain amout of laziness on their part. They don't want to take the time to make this material easier for new people to grasp they just want to change it and not worry about the little details of the past.

I don't play in the FR but I know if a world I enjoyed suddenly saw a massive jump in time, a jump that changed nations and rewrote the world, I would be more than a little upset. I don't mind when new elements are added to a setting that follow logically from the current history and political environment. I can alter or smooth such a transition to fit in my game. I hate when metaplot jumps are introduced to help accomodate a new edition or are designed to create a break in everything that came before. I always had an issue with the Greyhawk Wars because of what they did to the Flanaess and I have ignored everything the RPGA has done to the setting with the Living Greyhawk campaign. But FR always seemed the primary victim of these major changes and I sympathize with fans who keep seeing the world they love warped through seemingly arbitrary decisions.

The more and more I hear about 4e the less I want to buy into it. Of course everything is optional, that is not the point. When someone says "quit whining and b$&!#ing, you don't have to buy it, use it, etc." they are missing the point. Of course DMs know they have the right to change anything in their game. These sort of official changes can have a bad effect on a game, especially when bringing in new players who are reading the new material. Mechanics can be hand waved into a current game by simply saying wizards or rogues have always operated this way. Rarely have I seen the need to create fluff reasons for rules changes. Fluff changes for their own sake are harder to deal with especially when they dramatically change personal campaign details.

The DM's choice, of course, is to ignore the change but this creates a cascade effect with later product, rendering them less useful. It is one thing for me to make minor tweaks or to replace names based off the history of my past campaigns but it is quite another to force the hordes of DMs who use core D&D precepts in their games to make changes, either for or against the new material. Why would I want to buy something that I might need to completely overhaul in any case? Especially if I was one of those DMs who tried to remain core and I just had the rug torn out from beneath me.

So I think those who are upset have a right to be upset. I sympathize and understand that feeling.

Nic, this is so not true, it's just what shows like Will & Grace and Queer as Folk want you to believe. We chunky gays get plenty of action, believe me. Come back to the gay side!

Amen to all of the above. As fun as it is to joke around this way I much prefer a guy who has the pudgy, cuddly cuteness about him. Heck, I carry a little extra weight myself.

Really, Nic, I would classify you as pretty darn attractive.

Dang! Well, I'll admit to my misspelling, and to the female girlfriend, but I will fight you to the death on the matter of emo hair. Let it be known that I did bangs first, way back in ought-four when Wes still had a goatee and buzzed head (boo! hiss!), and mine were longer.

Hey! What's wrong with a shaved head and a goatee? I think you might be losing my vote here. Wes hasn't inadvertently insulted my age or my hair yet. :) And I think I might be swayed by the experience and finesse argument.

Yes, I have been accused of being fickle in the past, why do you ask?

Oh...and to stay on topic....Sandpoint is AMAZING.

The things I don't like are the mention of 1/day abilities that certain PCs are using and other odd things happening in response to different actions that just don't seem to flow good except in a CCG.

I will play for a long while with the 4.0 SRD before I purchase anything(like until I know that a 4.5 isn't right around the corner) and if Fakey no likey, Fakey no buyey.

I think I am right there with you. I am going to do a lot of research and see if it is something I want to do. It might end up I just create a "3.75" by stealing the parts of 4e that I like from the SRD. But I will give the system a fair look but, like you, if I don't like it I won't buy.

And while they don't give numbers the characters take out mobs of vampire minions and mummies in just a few rounds with a few select spells. It's not that taking out large groups of creatures with well chosen spells is alien to D&D I was just a bit surprised so many mummies and vampires went down when the characters are sitting at 6th to 8th level.

Sorry, I guess it does say about a dozen vampire minions but there is no clear idea how many mummies there are. The room could be small or large, I don't know.

I know the game is designed so the DM will be fielding more enemies but this combat seems remarkably one sided. Of course, the playtest report is so vague I am unsure exactly what has happened here or what the power levels of the creatures were. It might have been quite an exciting battle for all I know.

Perhaps I am just too impatient for my own good.

HAHA! Take that, F. Wesley!

And now, a prepaid campagin message:

Friends, Wes is 26. I'm only 23. Everyone knows that in homosexual beauty pageants, as with gymnastics and other professional sports, once you hit a certain age, it's all over. Please vote responsibly.

I'm James Sutter, and I approved this message.

(...and how the heck did folks know I have a girlfriend, anyhow?)

Ahh man, in gay terms I am ancient. Thanks for reminding me! Luckily I don't compete in these mysterious and apparently disfiguring gay pageants anymore.

You very clearly call for ecology jobs on behalf of your girlfriend at www.theneighborboy.com. That's the only reason I know. Not stalking or anything. Nope. Not me. :) Actually, I went to your band's site because you mentioned it the Who's Who thread and under the band bios you list a link to the neighbor boy site.

What frustrates me about the latest installment is the use of terminolgy that is either brand new or I am not familiar with. The warlock lays down a Mires of Minauros effect which creates an acidic bog. While I can imagine what that looks like I have no frame of reference for what they are talking about. Is it an acidic cloud of some sort? Is it something they created just for this game. Is the mention of the effect even pertinent and does it give me an idea of how spellcasting will work in the new edition.

For that matter, how was the warlock built? We seem to know it won't be a core class so where is all of this coming from? How about the warmage convert? They mention multiclassing but give no ideas how it might work in the new edition.

And while they don't give numbers the characters take out mobs of vampire minions and mummies in just a few rounds with a few select spells. It's not that taking out large groups of creatures with well chosen spells is alien to D&D I was just a bit surprised so many mummies and vampires went down when the characters are sitting at 6th to 8th level.

My final beef is that warforged paladin. We keep getting an idea it is massively unbalanced. Yet, the designers don't seem to have a clear statement on why that is outside of the DR comment in this last report. Did they purposefully build a broken character to discover flaws in the system?

I am generally optimistic overall mixed with some trepedation. But the playtest reports really aren't helping much. Maybe when we get meatier previews things will make sense but right now I just find the whole thing some what disappointing.

Coridan wrote:

Mike McArtor wrote:

So no, but Paizo does have bi and gay employees. :)

Here's hoping it's Wes, from the Gencon pics he wins most attractive ;)

Just wanted to second this ;)

I am hoping for Sutter. Though Wes is quite cute.

Yes, I know Sutter has a girlfriend but that does not exclude the bi angle.

I can hope. Not that it would really mean anything in the end but I can still hope. :)

is there some way that I can request that I *not* receive the printed product, and simply pay (the full subscription price) for the PDF? I personally HATE PDF's...but, we have to start making changes *somewhere*. I'll just print what I need at home. Maybe if others begin to do this on a regular basis, Paizo will be able to lower their order for printed material from China to reflect this. That way, more of our money stays here, at home. I know this is not a viable option to everyone, but if people would make this one concession...perhaps OTHER changes can be made that will positively effect our economy.

I admire your point and I inherently agree with what you are saying. Of course my concerns tend more towards fair treatment of employees worldwide when it comes to these situations. I accept the demands of American employment standards makes it difficult for companies to remain here. I wish there was something more that could be done but I am unsure what the solution would be in the current climate without creating other problems.

I guess what I don't understand is why you are asking for the option to pay full subscription price and yet opt out of the print product when you can simply buy each PDF individually. I haven't done the math honestly so I am unsure if buying PDFs would actually cost you more in the long run but under your theory of economic responsbility you would be willing to pay more for the product if you could insure all the money went to a US company.

I would suppose your desire to raise awareness is the reason you give for posting in multiple threads, even if the post was off topic. Just be aware that some might consider that thread spamming. You raised awareness. And if someone didn't know it I just made them aware you can buy the PDFs individually and avoid the Chinese printer issue entirely.

If your intention is to sway minds about this I am not sure you can. Not a commentary of you as a person, it is just such a massive hill you have to roll that rock up. I am not entirely convinced, in a world of globalization, such a task is possible. Honestly, I can definitely sympathize with the cause. I wish I could still go to my local butcher to buy meat, my local grocer to buy produce and my local carpenter to build my house. I do what I can when the situation is feasible even if it inconviences me slightly. I wish the days of supermarkets and megastores were no more. I believe, with a number of other factors, they erode the sense of community within our society and that communities worldwide suffer for it. I believe the situation is much more dire on a communal, local level. But they aren't going away and they won't be for a long time to come.

I agree with your thoughts but I like my print products and I want to support Paizo. I can do that by being a Charter Subscriber. I do this understanding some of the money leaves the country to print the product. I am okay with that. Now if I heard the printers in this facility were being mistreated then I would have another problem entirely. But I conciously make the choice in the hopes Paizo can grow and become a stronger company. I hate that I live in a world where such concessions are made but I also know I my control over this is very limited. I can only vote so much with my dollar before it becomes difficult to operate.

Can one of you educate me as to why Monte Cook "retired" from D&D?; what does he do now for a living?; And does he even play the game, apart from designing products for WoTC or OGL companies?

For complete information on his gaming habits and some inkling of his personal life I suggest you go to his site at www.montecook.com. He is starting a new D&D campaign it seems.

Much of what he released from Malhavoc, his personal company, was material developed for his own game. It was darn good material as well. Ptolus was his personal campaign setting for a number of years. His last two projects, Monte Cook's World of Darkness from White Wolf and a module from Goodman Games, were just released.

Now he is making a career as a novelist and already has a publisher for an upcoming book, though this is not his first foray into fiction writing. Monte has said he might return from time to time because he believes in never saying never. But it is very likely he will stay away for a bit. Though he is on the Gleemax advisory board though what that entails I am not sure. As for the "whys"....he was just ready for a life change.

I went to the Monte Cook Q&A at Gencon. Let me tell you, he is more gamer than anything. He is just a nice, regular guy who enjoys Dungeons and Dragons.

Anyway, my prescription only gone up a step in 15 years, so I'd say that my eyes are in pretty good shape. Regardless, I get my eyes checked every year as anyone with glasses should. :P

As do I. And I didn't mean to come off as a total ass when I said what I said. Well, maybe I did, but I apologize. I just know it can be a pain in the ass when I can't read something and I know my prescription is right on target. It happens rarely but it makes me feel like an old man (I'm only 31) when I can't read something. :) It is down right frustrating.

By the way, the full page maginifier is a good idea, I appreciate that suggestion. It does make quick reference in game slightly awkward but I think it could help.

I would generally agree that I would rather have content over a larger font size. Like I said, I can read most of it I just miss the occassional word. Running the adventure might get interesting but I can make certain adjustments if I need to. Honestly though, if a significant number of people are having a great deal of trouble then I would want to make sure they were comfortable and happy with the product as well.

Just get one of these...

Full-Page Magnifier

I mean really, I wear glasses and I can still read the current font size WITHOUT them. Stop inconveniencing the rest of with your vanity and get some glasses, if you have them and still can't read it, get new ones.

I do wear glasses and I occasionally have trouble reading certain fonts. My glasses are appropriate for my current eye troubles, my prescription is current. Its not about vanity and its not about troubling you in any way. Please keep your judgements and arrogance in check.

It is more than the size sometimes. It is a combination of factors. Most often it is font style, font size, and the glossy nature of the paper. I can read most text just fine but the Pathfinder text is a bit hard to read at times.

Oh, as for your glasses. How bad is your vision? What kind of vision issue do you have? I imagine it is different for everyone so, once again, broad statements don't suit the discussion.

While not 100% on topic, I saw this article recently and thought it had some relevance.

Good link.

There is an interesting book...

http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/067975164 5

..that concerns the subject of same sex unions in Medieval Europe.

gaymers group wrote:

An NPC in the scenario is a gay pirate named "Looish". At first, I thought it was coool to have a gay character in RPGA (it's very rare), but it ended up as the same old tired and insulting stereotype. The NPC has a big, pink ship and toy dog named "Sparkles" (complete with pink bowtie). The pirate's catch phrase (as written on his npc sheet which I saw) was "What a rough beast, I like 'em rough".

...

<stunned silence>

...

Okay, it took me a second to completely process that. Wow. I used to play a number of RPGA events and I dropped out because of boredom. I am happy I missed this.

Anyway, peoples of other persuasion have been in Paizo's publishings for years. As far as I can tell, it's always been in the manner of "Here is this protagonist. Oh, and he also happens to be gay." Or "here's this antagonist. Oh, She also happens to be a lesbian." Makes it easy to ignore if the group is uncomfortable with that kind of material. As far as I can tell, that's about as respectful handling of the material any company can do.

I can agree here. I don't think I want a big label that says GAY CHARACTER HERE and then have the plot intimately tied to that fact. I think its nice when the situation is handled very matter of factly, like any heterosexual character would be. No need to make a big deal out of it. But it is nice that such a state is the "norm" at Paizo.

I didn't realize Burnt Offerings had a gay character. I haven't had a chance to really read it over yet. If it does not spoil anything for anyone else, which character is homosexual?

Never mind, found it. Very cool.

Has there been any other gaming product that presented a homosexual character in a serious way before Pazio did with Burnt Offerings?

Also I was wondering if any players out there have ever played a Homo/Bi sexual PC in a game. And if so how were you received by the other gamers?

Ptolus has a gay character in it that is portrayed fairly well. White Wolf has had a number of characters with varying levels of sexual preferences.

I didn't realize Burnt Offerings had a gay character. I haven't had a chance to really read it over yet. If it does not spoil anything for anyone else, which character is homosexual?

I have had some players create sexually undecided characters and one player decided her character was pretty much bisexual. In my game it goes over well enough but my group is probably slightly unique. I am the GM and I happen to be gay.

Which leads me to a great big "thank you" to Paizo. Whether hero or villain, man or woman, homosexual and bisexual characters get the short shrift in most RPG material. There is a larger portion of gay, lesbian and bisexual players out there people might realize. It would be nice to see just a few more NPCs that represent this portion of the RPG playing population.

I am of two minds here.

On one hand I don't care about the change that much. If Greyhawk is no longer the default setting it might stand to reason the Great Wheel is changing as well. Of course, it also stands to reason the Great Wheel doesn't exist at all.

On the other hand I rather liked the baseline assumptions of the Great Wheel and I thought Planescape (and products that came before) did a nice job creating a reason why everything worked the way it did. Sometimes it was artificial but sometimes it worked like a charm. I also don't particularly like the idea that the designers *appear* to have just rejected a good deal of the "canon" that was recently released in Fiendish Codex II.

And, as my mind swings back to the other position, I never put much stock in canon anyway. I am up on it and all that but my games rarely follow it.

Besides my cosmology of choice for the last few years has been a variation on Malhavoc's Beyond Countless Doorways so distinctions like demon and devil have meant very little to me. Even less so since I have been running a regular Ptolus game.

I guess am trying to balance impending change with years of tradition. Perhaps it is simply nostalgia. I don't know.

Of course, this is not an impending toll of doom for the new edition or the "assumed setting". This is not the death knell of the Great Wheel. In the end, I will use the fluff I find is most appropriate for my setting of choice.

The Center for Talented Youth at John Hopkins thinks RPGs are bad?

That's insane. What is this world coming to? You think they would want to foster creative thought.

Congrats on circumnavigating the system and developing what sounds like a fun and imaginative game.

I tend to name my campaigns and let the players know about it.

The first name I can recall was actually a series of Greyhawk campaigns called The Hero Kin Trilogy. Though we never finished the whole saga the idea behind it was each player would play a descendant or relative of a character in the first campaign. One of the important themes was "sins of the former generation" being visited on subsequent family members. The first part,called The Prelude to War or The Honor of Verbobonc, dealt with clones of the long dead wizard Acererak pulling strings to bring about the Greyhawk Wars. The second part took place after the war and dealt with a pact the first generation characters made with a green dragon. She came calling at the door of the "second generation". We never made it to the third part.

A few others off the top of my head Fall of the Flanaess (Greyhawk again), Beneath the Pillars of the Earth (homebrew setting), Rise of the Devourer Wyrm (homebrew setting), and our current Ptolus game, Servants of the Shard

I feel a name, either good or bad, really makes the campaign stick out in the character's memory.

I As adults many of us have places to go on the net where we feel comfortable, where we can speak with peers, and where our ideas are considered on their own merits. People in the teen and early-20s demographics want the same thing. I hope Gleemax can provide that. I truly hope it will be a gateway to D&D, CCGs, hobby board games, miniature games, et al for its members.

This, of course, is not to insinuate teens and early 20-somethings aren't welcome here and other places. Or that they aren't mature or discriminating individuals. Just that I can see the wisdom in providing a place that feels comfortable for those two demographics. Perhaps erring more on the side of teenagers in this case.

I know if I could have found such a place when I was a teenager I would have been considerably happier.

I am not overwhelmingly impressed with the site either. Of course, as stated, as a 30 year old veteran gamer of 22 years I don't think I am supposed to be the target audience. But if it is the myspace for young people interested in games then I hope it goes well.

Like it or not, beyond all the opinions about myspace, it does provide a social network for people. A suprisingly large number of companies, artists, and bands have myspace pages to help drum up interest and draw potential consumers from the thousands of people who participate on the site. I don't particularly care for the environment of myspace but I can see the wisdom in trying to hit that particular demographic.

If the full version of Gleemax takes off and it garners new customers for hobby gaming then it is an unmitigated success. This hobby always needs new blood and a diverse group of it at that. As adults many of us have places to go on the net where we feel comfortable, where we can speak with peers, and where our ideas are considered on their own merits. People in the teen and early-20s demographics want the same thing. I hope Gleemax can provide that. I truly hope it will be a gateway to D&D, CCGs, hobby board games, miniature games, et al for its members.

I am interested to see what tact they will take with the D&D portion of the DI. I am saddened by the loss of my magazines but I am choosing to take a "wait and see" approach on this situation. If it is geared towards the younger audience as well I will be disappointed but I can't get too upset. Kids and young adults are going to keep these games alive and I hope we can show them to balance the fun of an MMO with the social excitement of hobby games. Today's youth are tomorrow's buying adults.

I had a paladin survive it. He was 75 and nearly unable to stand but he did survive. Barely. No one else did.

I was lucky at the end. Lucky die rolls on my part, bad rolls on the part of the DM. In the few times I have played it since none of my characters have survived.

As a side note, about a year ago we played the 3.5 version from the WotC site. I was not as pleased with it as the original. It took about as twice as long to play, situations were not as "insta-kill" as they once were (odd complaint, I know), and the added encounters fell flat, IMHO.

Firearms brought to Greyhawk from Wildspace in Spelljammer would not function due to Greyhawk's particular "physics," but at the same time, the old campaign setting mentioned that guns brought there from some other dimensions (like Earth?) still functioned.

It does make you wonder how the ban on firearms could exist in the same world Expedition to Barrier Peaks takes place. Quite an odd "disconnect".

Can the DM really say, "Sorry, you may have spent $100+ on books but I don't like them?!"

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, you as the DM set the expectations for your campaign, its setting, and the material you use. If a player goes out and buys material you don't want in your game it really is your perogative to say no. The choice to buy that material was theirs and they take the risk you might say no to something that is not "core".

When it comes to excising material that already exists in a campaign or setting, that is a little more difficult I admit. But, it is still within your rights to remove material that you find is not appropriate for your campaign or its style. And sometimes that has a lot to do with extremes or how closely intergrated that material is in the setting. Removing guns from Iron Kingdoms? Nearly impossible. It sounds like it will be much easier to simply ignore in the Pathfinder world.

Of course there is no reason to be petty about it but if you have a good reason for not wanting said material in your game I would think your players would respect that decision to help preserve the fun for the entire group. That includes the DM.

Just as there are guns in Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms.

This is totally off topic, I apologize for that now.

It used to be firearms and other items of "higher tech" simply did not work in Greyhawk. In fact the only character capable of utilizing firearms was the hero god Murlynd and he had a pair of six shooters. I can't really recall where I saw this originally, which makes my assertion kind of weak, so if someone could point that out I would appreciate it. Has something changed that I missed or is that generally not the case now? Or was I dead wrong in that train of thought?

I will admit I have not followed Greyhawk since 2nd ed and have paid very little attention to any treatment given the world by the RPGA. I used to hang about on Canonfire all the time but that is hardly staying up to date with the setting, great as that site is.

Considering that firearms and flamethrowers were a product of the middle ages, I'm about sick of people saying that firearms have no place in D&D. If you don't like 'em, don't use 'em--but don't deny that they belong in a medieval setting.

Thank you for that. The baseline D&D world takes place in a setting roughly the same technologically as the Late Middle Ages/Early Renaissance. Heavy plate is just one of the "give aways" on that point. The other is the rapier. Guns saw regular use in warfare from the Hundred Years War on.

If anything though the setting is an idealized version of the medieval period. People live longer, healthier lives. Cities have extensive and effective sewer systems. With even a little bit of magic augmenting their lives people have more leisure time to simply think and develop. Class structure is looser and there is a general lack of gender prejudice. There seems to be no social restriction on what a person can choose as a career path. Good faiths almost always serve the people and Evil faiths seek to undermine them. The local clergy can perform miracles. The world is black and white.

At the same time defense is of the utmost concern. Hordes of deadly creatures lurk in the wilderness and the land is strewn with ruins filled with horrid beasts. It seems to me guns would be only one of a number of ways alchemists and craftsmen would devise to protect people.

When you examine the baseline D&D assumptions with a critical eye the setting is about as medieval as my local Medieval Faire. Its a good time but hardly accurate by any stretch of the imagination. It is inspired by a Middle Ages that never was. Thus is the way of fantasy. To make it fun requires a stretching of the limits and I think guns can be included in that expansion. We are talking about matchlock technology here, not Berettas and AK-47s.

I guess my question would be why do guns betray the medieval setting when extensive sewer systems in cities, clockwork creatures, loose social structures, advanced engineering and architectural achievements, etc do not?

But guns are not for everyone, I understand that. I implement them into every campaign unless I am 1) trying something different or 2) playing in Greyhawk where such items are not supposed to work. For the most part I assume an early to mid 16th century level of technology in my settings. I am happy that the Pathfinder stuff will keep them small and isolated so those that hate guns can remove them and those who like them can increase their prominance. I just don't think their presence ruins fantasy and they certainly don't take a setting out of the D&D Late Medieval roots.

I think the Pathfinder compromise is fantastic and I can't wait to see exactly what is done.

[

Totally misreading, I'm afraid. You don't have to "spend" the tokens to enhance a murder attempt. They're "always on," and you get to keep them afterwards.

<grin> Oops. Thank you for clearing that up. I feel silly now. Not sure how we missed that.

alleynbard wrote:

When a token is used to augment a kill attempt they leave the game. Tokens used to stop an attempt are exchanged as normal.

Just checking... you realize that normally tokens automatically add to murder attempts, and don't change hands in that situation?

-Vic.
.

Correct, but they go back to the pool of available tokens normally. At least that was my understanding. So those tokens remain in circulation. As far as I can tell they are not permanently discarded like failure cards. If you make a murder attempt and it fails you still get one token for your trouble. So I use five tokens to make a murder attempt with my bare hands. While I "discard" the tokens I used for the murder attempt I still get one for the failed attempt and any spite tokens my opponents used to stop me. Essentially I gained seven tokens out of the deal if all of the failure cards have left the game. The next turn another person makes an attempt, they gain tokens equal to their attempt plus one. And the game goes on from there. Is that right or are we totally mis-reading something?

In our games when you use a token to augment a murder attempt the token is discarded permanently. Otherwise, by the time you get to the "end" of the game and all the failure cards are out of play there are enough tokens on the board to stop most attempts.

When you say "automatically" are you saying you must use spite tokens in your murder attempt if you have them? That is not how we currently play and it is possible we are screwing that up.

Oh, and to answer your first question, we usually play with six players. We ran into the token issue with every game. Despite that we love the game and have enjoyed it since its Cheapass days. The expansion is something we are really looking forward to.

Does anyone else have this problem with spite tokens? What happens is that the deck is done, (no more failure cards) and the stack of tokens just migrates from one player to another, until we get frustrated and someone decides not to spend their tokens and let someone win.

Not a fun ending for the game.

Any other people have this problem?

We often have the same problem. I was wondering if I was missing something there for a while. It had gotten to the point where we weren't using the spite tokens anymore. Well, we finally houseruled a solution. They sort of work like failure cards only in the reverse. When a token is used to augment a kill attempt they leave the game. Tokens used to stop an attempt are exchanged as normal.

Columbus, OH. Right in the middle of the state.

I am big fan grouping planes in anyway but alignment.

I like the idea of planes grouped by some philosophical concept such as the seven deadly sins and seven saintly virtues. The lords of each plane can epitomize the nature of that plane. For illustration sake, Demogorgon would be a good choice for Wrath while Malcanthet can rule Lust. Asmodeus would make a good lord of Pride. Of course, new fiendish/celestial lords could/should be created to fill those roles. Alignment between creatures really doesn't matter at that point, "philosophical alignment" would be much more important.

This doesn't have to be limited to religious philosophy. The planes could based on some alteration to Plato's Theory of Forms where the real world is but a shadow of nearby or coexistent planes that overlap the material. These planes could be seen as the "True World" by material world residents.

I also favor a cosmology of remarkable simplicity, perhaps a simple dualist model. There are only two planes, the material and the spiritual. Outsiders live in the spiritual while all other creatures call the material home. This is a little difficult to pull off using standard D&D traditions since outsiders would most likely have to live in "territories" or "pockets" within the spiritual. But it might make for an interesting take on how the planes work.

While I enjoy the Great Wheel I think I firmly fall into the "something different" camp.

All right, I admit I am a lurker but the very idea of Ptolus material produced by Paizo is enough to bring me out of it.

Make this another vote/hope/wish that Paizo would produce modules set in Ptolus.