bugleyman's page

So, if I like using a grid map for combat but my friend doesn't, we're going to be able to make that work?

'fraid not.

Just for the record, I'll be picking up 5E. I'll also be picking up Pathfinder 2E, whenever it arrives. I love RPGs, and want the industry to thrive.

Game preference is just that...a preference. Arguing about it is a waste of time. Even if there were some value in trying to decide whether 4E was a failure, the first thing one would have to do is to define precisely what one means by "failure." Sales projections? Customer preference? Project strategy? Pointless.

I would love to see 5E be a fantastic success. I'd love to see Pathfinder continue to be one. Seeking validation in the failure of one or the other is just sad.

Will it be a Pathfinder sized tome?

Argh, I hope not. Don't get me wrong, having a comprehensive PHB would be awesome, but the CRB is a bit much. In hindsight I really wish Paizo had gone with the traditional three-book setup used by D&D.

It is admittedly on its very last legs right now, and probably won't survive to our actual tenth anniversary, but considering it wasn't brand-new when we got it, it has held up very, very well.

Hey Vic: In case you're not aware, many copiers contain hard drives holding an image of everything that has ever been copied on the machine. If your copier does die, please be sure to securely erase, degauss, or destroy the hard drive therein. ;-)

You know what would be awesome? If we split a few more hairs and argue some more about whether 4E was a failure. I'm sure both someone in this thread is just that close to proving forever that his opinion is the correct one...

Anything I don't personally like is sure to be a massive failure and an indelible stain on the game's fine legacy.

And it definitely wouldn't be "real" D&D.

And it will kick puppies.

Yeah, the packaging needs to be addressed. Being Paizo, I'd be surprised if they don't do something by the third release (it may be too late to change anything about ROTRL).

We are also nearly doubling the number of tables this year so that would bump that number to 3000-3600.

1. More than doubling? Holy crap.

2. Perhaps there could be an audit table and characters could be audited every X levels? That way there is no stigma attached...

Honestly, I do forget that a lot of people don't play the way Kirth, TOZ and our group does. Yeah, some of the "fiddly" parts are more or less glossed over.

Sounds like an amazing game. :)

Seriously, though, you write in far better English than any number of the native Americans here.

Hey Kirth, why do you hate Native Americans? :P

Bugley!, Bob, Eric, Drogon: I love youse guys.

1) Let's have this discussion in a thread meant for Survey discussion and/or after the survey is completed.

2) Everyone will have the chance to ignore/rip/destroy/distort whatever data they want...I will be releasing it. So, I won't be doing anymore analysis than any of you. This will be community data to use...so I won't be throwing out any questions. In future discussions, I'll let others decide how they want to view things.

-Pain

Sure thing. Sorry for snapping at you.

Completed....and it appears I did it wrong.

Also, 5=high and 1=low isn't a convention, it's a mathematical fact. The alternative is the very definition of counter-intuitive. Blaming the respondents is a real stretch imho.

EXACTLY my point. If you weren't on the other side of the Atlantic (and got such an icon), I would french kiss you.

My tongue is a foot long. Don't knock it til you try it! :P

American Exceptionalism is nothing more than plain old nationalism with a fancy name.

I'm grateful I was born here, just as I would be grateful if I were born in Canada. Or Norway. Or Germany. The U.S. is a fine place to live that gets a lot of things right, but we're all better served if we look at it with our eyes open. Only by seeing the truth, warts and all, can we hope to improve.

houstonderek wrote:

And still just adjudicated by a single roll. I have a bunch of "if x, then y" on any of my character sheets, so, except for really out there modifiers, for me, it's still just "roll, compare to CMD".

Also true. I think simplistic might have been a misleading term. It's definitely not complicated to handle the math, it's just not particularly concise. It's not as basic as "I have this bonus, it applies to all situations," but it's not far from it either. More things begin to factor into it that are all dependent on other things. Some people are too lazy to track their own attack bonuses, though, and stuff like this just loses them. That doesn't speak poorly of the system. It's a somewhat pathetic account of lazy players.

Gotta disagree. Grappling isn't hard, but it is fiddly, and frankly the payoff for dealing with the fiddly bits just isn't t sufficient. Obviously this is just my opinion, but I'd call that poor design -- or at least design that is not to my taste. "Lazy" has no place in the conversation.

And still just adjudicated by a single roll. I have a bunch of "if x, then y" on any of my character sheets, so, except for really out there modifiers, for me, it's still just "roll, compare to CMD".

Derek, you know we love you, but I'm going to have to side with Scott on this one. There are just far too many situational modifiers and fiddly bits to commit to memory. I'm sure the system works fine if most of those are glossed over, but that isn't following the RAW.

The official change log is a nice touch.

It's more than that -- it looks like our new campaign coordinator is bringing some (badly needed) experience in change control and communication to bear. Two thumbs up. :)

Dabbler wrote:

In all seriousness, the katana is rated by the professionals as the deadliest overall personal combat weapon ever devised.

What experts were these?

1. Bad! No cookie.

2. I was killed by a katana once...I got better.

bugleyman wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

Really? He asks for a source, and you lean on Wikipedia? Really?

Really. The "can't trust Wikipedia" meme was played out circa 2009.

If I cared enough to bother, I could register on Wikipedia and edit the entry on Pathfinder to say that PeeWee Herman authored it.

Yup. And you'd be lucky if it lasted an hour.

There is plenty of research on this subject -- if you truly care about credibility, I suggest you review it. If, on the other hand, you're just looking to pick a fight...carry on. :)

Has Paizo ever discussed the idea of including a listing of the maps packs and/or flip mats included in each PFS scenario, or is that generally considered too much of a spoiler? It would be nice to know which resources I may have on hand.

Wow, just saw this. Sorry to see you go, Rene, and sorry I didn't run for you more often. :(

bugleyman wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

Really? He asks for a source, and you lean on Wikipedia? Really?

Really. The "can't trust Wikipedia" meme was played out circa 2009.

[citation needed]

Well played, sir. I retire from the field in defeat. ;-)

1. Bugbear is amazing.
2. Red looks a lot like the Dragoneye red (which is not a bad thing).
3. Treachery demon is also a strong piece.

Very, very nice. The first three adventures in Rise are some of my favorite mods ever. Hardback is a no-brainer. Still not ready to sign up for a case of these guys, but the temptation is growing.

"Now, the sanctioned modules must be played by a character within one level of the module’s starting level. I know this is not a popular decision for some. However, campaign leadership feels this change is what is best for the campaign. Death and use of consumables now have consequences."

THANK YOU. Sanctioned modules just went from "why bother" to a vibrant, exciting part of the campaign.

Really? He asks for a source, and you lean on Wikipedia? Really?

Really. The "can't trust Wikipedia" meme was played out circa 2009.

Thank you everyone! I think I have a better idea of what to expect, and though cautiously, am more optimistic about it. I don't know what class to play yet, but this thread did eventually "talk" me through to that I might be looking for an event running the appropriately named "First Steps" scenario, so that's good to know!

My apologies if you mentioned this and I missed it, but roughly where do you live? If you're in the Phoenix metro area I'd be delighted to run for your group -- I'll even come to you.

Oh, and: Holy Wall of Text, Batman! :P

PFS should be great, at least as a player. Talk to the GM ahead of time...most of 'em are fantastic about adapting to the table make-up. Of course it's possible to get unlucky, but don't let that turn you off of the whole experience.

39.

No military.

Started playing in or around 1982 with the Moldvay Basic -- went on DM my first real campaign around '90 with 2E.

Ciratose's response broadly covers my opinion too (and surely that of any unbiased person);

So anyone who doesn't share your opinion is biased? Gosh, if only you'd explained things sooner...

The OGL system wise has nothing do with my purchases from Paizo.

Presumably you mean other than the fact that the products you purchase wouldn't exist without the OGL?

No more base classes, please. In fact, is there an option to remove some? ;-)

I don't believe that WotC should release 5E under the OGL out of some mis-guided sense of altruism. Nor do I believe the failure to do so would in any way constitute a monopoly.

I believe that WotC should 5E under the OGL as a matter of simple necessity.

Among all the things we don't know, there is one thing we do: That 5E will be released into the market with a strong, vibrant, OGL competitor. Irrespective of whether one believes creating the OGL in the first place was a mistake, WotC must deal with market realities -- however they came to be. IMO the cat is out of the bag, and 4E demonstrated the futility of trying to put it back.

Newt says that if elected (twice), by the end of his second term we will have a permanent moon base.

Now assuming that he is being honest (yeah right), would this interest anyone to vote for him?

Not me. While a nice idea, we've got any number of more important issues to deal with. also, unless he plans to design and build the thing himself, more than his honest intent would be necessary, anyway.

Of course I should admit that the only Republican who had a shot at my vote (albeit a long one) is out of the race.

Quite right, bugleyman.

It's an unnecessary redundancy.

I keel you. :)

I apologize for my bit as well.

So to take things in a new direction I propose four new questions on corporations themselves:

1. Should corporations be treated as citizens?
2. Should corporations be allowed to spend their money on political statements?
3. How should legal responsibility be assigned in a corporation, and should those legally responsible be held responsible in all cases that the corporation is found guilty of illegal activity?

and lastly:
4. What can we do as a country (or as individuals) to help reduce the level of crap that corporations get away with?

1. No

2. No (a corollary of #1)
3. Legal responsibility shouldn't be assigned to a corporation, but to its agents (typically management, but not always).
4. Get corporate money out of politics. Along with #2, above, anyone who holds public office cannot be a lobbyist or political consultant for a period of 10 years or twice the period span spent in office, whichever is greater. Not a cure-all, but a good start.

I do psychology for a profession...

Right...

The outcome of the South Carolina primary is in keeping with my perception of the state. ;-)

The past history of the market's reactions to D&D has no bearing whatsoever on my own reactions. It's a little weird that you think it would.

Never write "past history" again. It's like writing "free gift." History is by definition in the past. FOR LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD IN THE UNIVERSE, STOP THE MADNESS!

Now back to your regularly-scheduled edition war.

How exactly is there 'a very good chance' 5e will be better for you than 4e?

The previous edition (4e) has apparently come to be regarded as worse than it's predecessor by something like 50% of it's previous audience/customer base. Those seem like pretty poor and shakey odds based on past history to me. You liked 4e ... you may not like 5e. Unless you're saying 'I'll like it whatever' ... which is madness if you ask me.

Perhaps Scott doesn't really care what "50%" of the audience thinks. Maybe, just maybe, some of us don't seek validation in the opinions of others.

Let's look at what Scott said:

1. Scott liked the changes from 3.5E->4E.
2. Scott expects to like the changes from 4E->5E, too.

Yeah, that sounds like madness to me...

Also, the word "past" in the phrase "past history" is redundant. Normally I wouldn't mention it, but messing up ninth-grade grammar undermines your aura of smugness.

Going in with the recent "WotC did X so Paizo should do X as well" line of posts, I guess that Paizo should now follow the example of the Illustrious Industry Leader and axe the line.

*SARCASM MODE OFF*

IN fairness, a good part of Paizo's product line looks an awful lot like WotC's circa 2004.

Just a quick note: Not everyone gets pissed off by "having" to rebuy books. At least I don't. I'd happily buy a cleaned-up CRB, for example. Heck, I gave my first printing to a friend and bought the third printing when it comes out. Then again, I generally don't buy most of the subsequent books, so buying a new set of core books every few years is not big deal -- I generally like seeing what they've come up with.

Thank goodness capitalism is such a meritocracy.

see Ninja, Gunslinger...

Must I?

*rimshot*

If there's ONE thing I've learned over the years is this: It's not about how good you are, it's ALL about who you know. This goes for the convenience store workers all the way to high government officials. You want to go "UP" at work, then choose a work where one of your good friends is president; Then, and ONLY then, you'll be vice-president in no time. What? You don't know any? Well, then do like me: Get used to moving sideways.

C'mon. Look above you. Can any of you really say that their superiors really know their stuff and are true examples of work ethics? No. Most bosses usually have no clue what's going on, hop how to fix things, or even go though a single daily chore (like put paper in the photocopying machine or change the ink cartrige on a printer). They're good at telling you that you don't perform well though (although they have no clue what the hell you're doing).

I have totally lost confidence in good hard honest work. It NEVER (EVER) pays off. You always end up doing the work of three (cause you're that damn good), while those around/above you pretend to not notice. And, in the end, the company will chew you to a pulp and spit you out on the curb when you start costing too much.

Ultradan

Unfortunately this is pretty accurate. I work for someone who works for someone who is less qualified than I am, as measured by education, knowledge, practical experience, or just plain I.Q.

Though I would add a complete lack of scruples and/or mountains of unwarranted self-confidence as viable paths to success.

bugleyman wrote:

Speculation about why Mearls didn't challenge what was written is irrelevant.

So, I can't decide what is "more likely" but you get to decide what is "irrelevant".

I don't think so bugleyman.

It's relevant. Mearls was interviewed. He said things. He knows that what he said was reported on and published to the audience he is supposed to be designing a game for. And you think it's irrelevant to speculate on what he said or meant?

So why was he interviewed again? Since what he says or means is, you know, "irrelevant" after all.

Oh, and what someone publishes in an article is not "hearsay". It's "reporting." Or are you suggesting that the New York Times is "irrelevant" too?

Given how "so-and-so said _____" takes on a life of it's own in gamer circles, I believe the distinction between "quotation" and "hearsay" is important. You are free to disagree, but i have no more to say on the topic.

I would be a huge proponent of an open API that developers can use to create content. But as a one-time programmer, don't underestimate the difficulty of that. For it to work well, it has to be designed into the system from the start. And now you're introducing design elements into the game that have more to do with promoting content than in playability.

Which may be fine. But it's something I'd be wary of if I were the chief designer.

Did C++ for Intel for three years...and I'll say I probably *am* underestimating the difficulty, at least of doing it well. Plus WotC isn't exactly known for their software...

Monte Cook's World of Darkness (McWoD) :)

Ah, yes...I sorta guessed from context, but I haven't read it -- honestly it seemed rather pointless to me.

I think there will be more to integrating the complex mechanical interactions that introducing, let's say, a new set of feats would cause than simply saying, "Here's the API, go for it!"

Even if that were true, though, it'll be interesting to see how the 3pp world adjusts to the need for a moderate level of technical expertise in order to keep up with publishing trends.

Imho that depends on the content and the extensibility of the interfaces. Certainly some of even WotC's 4E mechanics would have been challenging to integrate without some kind of access to logic. However, pretty much anything would be an improvement on what third parties got for 4E.

In any event, I'd love to see a more open license and DDI (or whatever) for 5E.

I've always been wary of Mr. Cook since the, in my opinion, god awful McWOD. I'm a fan of the White Wolf games, not of that... thing.

McWOD sounds like a new McDonald's sandwich. :P