deinol's page

What do you do when your roommates never do the dishes?

Sounds like an epic story,just hope it doesn't look too much like a good Warhammer campaign and retains some sort of originality!

I don't understand this. A good Warhammer campaign should look like a good RPG campaign. And good campaigns are original.

Unless you mean you hope it isn't like the Enemy Within Campaign, which had an excellent arc in books 1-3, a good but ultimately a sidequest in book 4, and a giant mess for the conclusion in book 5.

But any AP that manages to get close to Enemy Within books 1-3 is gold in my book.

The problem with putting something in the public domain is then you don't even need to credit the source. That's why I prefer something like the Creative Commons license, which you can designate By Attribution and leave it at that.

And I've seen tons of 3PP that adapted and used other 3PP. Most OGL declarations show more than just Wizards SRD and Pathfinder Core.

It does depend a lot on the type of product you are making. An adventure is likely to use different monsters, but unlikely to bring in random feats from another source.

I have to highly recommend Christina Stiles, she's done great work for Kobold Press.

As an European, I usually have about 20 parties to choose from. Of course, two or three of them are usually favourites. It's been taht way for ages. Guess what ? it still works out.

Best of luck in the election.

I'm assuming you don't have a system that is run by two parties. Election boards are by law made up of half one party and half the other. They make it so that it becomes difficult for 3rd parties to get on the ballot.

The other big factor is money. The DNC and the RNC are both well entrenched in the money raising business. They can afford to have offices everywhere. They know how to get money out of lobbyists. They can get their chosen candidates in touch with the right people. It would take a huge amount of money to setup that kind of political machine for a third party. It just isn't going to happen.

As much as I dislike it, the best way to change a party is from the inside. The left could take a note of how the Tea Party works. It isn't a distinct party, but a movement within the Republican party. If you want more "Green" candidates, we need to rally behind them and get them nominated as Democrats. Or if you prefer Libertarian, you could probably get them nominated for either party depending on the particular state or district.

I did not address it earlier, but your 'they were released under the OGL so it's okay' response is a bit off.

Other than the iconics you mention, Paizo has created a number of unique monsters and released them under the OGL.

Per your response it would be all right to sell paintings, or illustrated books or miniatures based off of those OGLed monsters? If not, why are those monsters different than the flumph, flail snail or aboleth?

Which is why he mentioned the iconics, which are product identity, not open content.

Although strictly speaking, if you are making a painting of an OGL'd monster, you should include a copy of the OGL and the proper copyright statements with it.

As it is Robert, you are arguing from a standpoint of wanting to change the existing laws. So you are showing cases that push the boundaries. I do agree that copyright law needs to be reigned in. 100+ years is too long for copyright. But maybe 30-50 years is ok. But there's a difference between civil disobedience of a law you don't like and ignoring a law you don't like to make money.

I wonder, given how APs are designed to have the PCs level up at certain points, are there any groups out there that do away with XP altogether, with the GM simply stating at certain key accomplishment, "Ding-ding-ding! You level up!"? How is that working for you if you do?

My last game I started with me handing out XP at the end of every session. Eventually my players said: "hey, why don't you just tell us when we level?" so we switched to that. It worked great.

I've played in this type of game before, though, and didn't like it. As a player, the concreteness of gaining a number that I can add to an existing number as physical proof that I progressed on my path toward the next level by playing a session is really important, and it helps me gauge how fast I'm leveling up and prepares me (and lets me anticipate) when a session is likely to give me xp enough to level up.

Of course, not everyone likes that system. So I suggest you ask your group which way they prefer. The game works fine either way.

I believe we are in a golden age right now. Because right now, I have access to material to play any version of D&D I want. And new material is coming out daily. If I need ideas before a session, I can start a thread here or on any number of social media and get dozens of new and interesting ideas within minutes. There has never been a better time to be a gamer. (This extends to RPGs in general, but it fits for the subset that is D&D as well.)

As for favorite modules, I have a fondness for the Palace of the Silver Princess. It is one of the few modules I've ever run more than once. I also really liked Dead Gods for Planescape.

They must have done something right. I don't recall this kind of uproar when say, Neverwinter Nights 2 had a terrible ending.

The fact that people care enough to keep talking about it means they already succeeded.

Of course, I haven't played any of them yet. I'm a cheap bastard and will probably wait until the entire trilogy director's cut edition is available on steam for < $30.

Odraude wrote:

I was wondering, how far does someone fall per round? I couldn't find it anywhere in the core rule book and it had come up when a player fell into a ravine.

Someone did that math at one point, and it was fast. AKA: for most falls, you'll hit bottom in the same round you start falling, so it won't normally matter.

Correct me if I'm wrong but:

While I can't promise anything, let me just say that the idea of a Distant Worlds player companion has been heard, and is busy percolating... I'll see what I can do....

Good thing the Player Companion line is going monthly so it has more room for awesome products. ;)

Also, a quick thank-you: This thread has really given me a lot of insight into what people want. For instance, I had no idea that folks would be so keen on getting official stats for all the humanoid alien races, hence my decision to make the monsters in the back of the book some of the crazier specimens (rather than the ones that can be reasonably modeled by making slight variations to the basic core races). Clearly I was mistaken! It's possible that, down the road, we'll go ahead and stat up all the basic planetary races, especially if there continues to be vocal support for it. At the moment, unfortunately, it's not on the schedule.

You've given me a lot of food for thought, though!

Clearly a Distant World's Player's Companion needs to be added to the schedule. ;)

Problem #1: That was then and this is now. I can't stand the excuse about D&D starting out as a wargame, like that really changes anything. It's now a role playing game and not a wargame anymore. 4th edition thought they would try and bring this back but sprinkle a little role playing into the mix but it failed. The edition is already being shelved and a new one is taking it's place.

But that's my point, I don't see a change. People have been playing D&D as more "wargame" for as long as it existed. Other people have played a more "social" game for as long as it existed. Most people are somewhere in the middle. This is true for every edition of D&D.

4th Edition has skills and feats, the biggest tools of character customization that 3E added. If you want to see how great 4th edition can be as a social game, check out Wolfgang Baur's Courts of the Shadow Fey. Lot's of politics and intrigue.

As someone who plays a lot of different games, the idea that 3.X and 4E are all that different just seems laughable. Go check out Fate, Houses of the Blooded, Dogs in the Vineyard, or Mouse Guard for some great RPGs that have interesting social conflict resolution systems.

I would argue that 4th Edition didn't fail (as if the #1 RPG in the world for 4 years straight is a failure). D&D keeps evolving. New ideas are tried and tested. The game get stronger every time.

LazarX wrote:

BTW, shouldn't we be moving onto a Doctor Who Series 7 thread now?

I'm not sure if they're going to call it a season or another run of specials.

The schedule I last saw was:

2012
Easter Special
Fall - Season 7 Part 1
Christmas Special

2013
Winter - Season 7 Part 2

But I don't know where to go to actually confirm that info.

The thing is, you have wizards, oracles, clerics, druids, sorcerers that trhow fireballs, manipulate the sea and weather, conjure krakens and do all sorts of other crazy stuff. Who needs cannons?

The poor fighter/rogue trying to fight the above.

Nor does a wizard forget a spell upon casting it. This is his life, spell magic and study, thus we will assume that the wizard studies and practices secretly in his private moments. To forget a spell could mean his death and is a fairly ludicrous idea. This is his occupation, his livelihood, he is no longer an apprentice, but a fledgling mage working to establish himself in his chosen profession. To suggest that he would forget a spell is like saying a soldier might forget how to use his sword.

From The Palladium Fantasy Role-Playing Game, 1983.

For almost as long as there has been D&D, there have been people who thought the Vancian spellcasting system was kinda stupid. Some of them even wrote new games to try and fix it. Not that I am recommending Palladium's system as a truly better alternative, it's insanely broken.

I'm a long time D&D player, and a big fan. But Vancian casting's "limitations" are mostly irrelevant at higher levels when you can supplement it with scrolls, staves, and wands. I understand it'll be a part of the game because of tradition, but let's not pretend it's there for any other reason.

Luckily, it sounds like 5E will be modular and flexible enough to suit all of our preferences when it comes to casting.

It's an alien we illustrated in Pathfinder #14 but never statted up or even named.

Yet.

From the Moonscar module discussion thread, art used for mockup cover.

(Of course, it could be statted up in said module.)

If by booming you mean "Selling in a distant 3rd place" sure. And it should also be noted that they were written originally by a 3PP (Green Ronin) that Games Workshop outsources to, and then bought by a card company after they were successful.

Thanks for helping me make my point about how the OGL helps develop R&D.

Green Ronin never worked on Dark Heresy. Dark Heresy was released by Black Industries, a subsidiary of Games Workshop, before they licensed out board games and RPGs to Fantasy Flight Games.

We also have no idea what sort of volume the 40K RPG sells, but it's been consistently in the top 5 since its release. I would love to be making that much money on RPGs.

I do agree that the OGL helped foster talent and grow the freelancer pool during the 3.X era, but the 40k RPGs aren't a good example for that. You are likely thinking of Chris Pramas's work on 2nd edition Warhammer Fantasy RPG.

Is there any 5th edition thread left in this forum that hasn't been entirely about personal mud throwing for the last week?

Since there isn't very much real information about 5E yet, we know a lot more about Scott than we do about the new game.

Hopefully we'll get some more substantial reports after the convention this weekend.

Elton wrote:

Pathfinder just cleaned up 3.5 and passed it off, and it feels like D&D to us. So we bought that. :)

Of course, there are some people for whom 3.X never felt like D&D.

Back in the 80's and 90's, not being D&D was a plus. I quickly abandoned AD&D to play Warhammer FRP, Talislanta, and Palladium because those were "better"* systems. When D&D 3.0 came out, it felt like it had finally evolved to be almost caught up with modern contemporaries. So from the perspective of someone who has always played a variety of RPGs, "D&Dness" doesn't matter. Is the game fun? Let's play.

*I will admit that I was young. Each system had strengths and weaknesses, but D&D didn't even have a skill system, so it felt incomplete to me.

Quote:

Interesting Betts. You're already dropping the system you've praised litteraly daily on these boards every since it arrived, for 5ED. If 4Ed was that great of a system, as you've suggested so often, why not stick with it? Then you wouldn't have to re-buy all those books you've already shelled out your hard earned dollars for in the 4Ed system?

First, I'll be switching because I tend to prefer supported systems to unsupported systems. I'll also be switching because the game will probably be even better than 4e. Just because I like it doesn't mean I don't think it can be improved.

As for re-buying books, they're cheap. I didn't spend more than a couple hundred dollars on books over the course of coming up on four years. And really, why would I complain about the opportunity to own more books? Books are awesome.

For $200 dollars, I can (and probably have) taken my wife to the movies ~10 times for ~20 hours worth of entertainment. Or I can spend $200 on RPG books that will keep myself and a party of 4 entertained for over a hundred hours of enjoyment per year. Our hobby is cheap guys. That said, I probably shouldn't tally up how much I spend a year on RPGs.

I agree with Scott — books are awesome.

I would definitely buy some collected modules. B series, X series, Tournament series, etc.

You didn't believe 4e was a commerical failure for wotc for the longest time ... and that clearly was the case.

I'm sorry, but what? Even if the ICv2 data showed the complete market picture, which it doesn't, 4E has to be consider a commercial success. Being the #1 RPG for 3 years in a row and the #2 for 1 year is the kind of commercial "failure" that every other RPG company in existence would love to have. I thought about listing some examples, but since I can't think of a single game company that wouldn't want that it seems pointless.

A commercial failure is a product that fails to make a profit. 4E has been very profitable for Wizards of the Coast. One of the things Paizo does very well is produce a ton of books. I have nearly everything they produced that says Pathfinder on it. That takes up more book shelf space than my official 3.X D&D books. That's a ton of product in half the time. So if there were equal numbers of Pathfinder fans and 4E fans, and each bought exactly 1 book of everything produced, Pathfinder would show more sales. But that doesn't make 4E a failure; every book they produce makes a profit.

Just because they've decided that they can make more profit by launching a new game that expands their market doesn't mean their previous product was a failure. A failed line gets cancelled and shelved for a while.

Except the OGL wasn't bad for Wizards in anyway until they abandoned it. If 4E had been OGL, more 3PP like Paizo would have supported it. Because even if they didn't like everything about the system, they'd have been free to release tweaks that they preferred.

As it is, all of the important information has already be released OGL. We have classic spells, classic monsters, game terms like Armor Class, Saving Throw, etc.

So unless 5E comes out with completely new terminology, which is dumb, and a completely alien new system, all of the important parts of 5E are already OGL. You could make an OGL version of 4E or 5E as easily as people have done for 0E, 1E, and 2E.

As far as I can see, an OGL 5E only strengthens Wizard's position the market. Going back to a more restrictive license can only harm them.

Who wants a halfling in their party anyway? Vicious little cannibals can't be trusted.

Ok, maybe I've been playing too much Dark Sun…

OMG! Faces of Golarion SO MUCH!

Like the Rival or NPC Guides, but without so much crunch, and more characterization and a focus a viewpoint of Golarion (really, the Inner Sea) from the "ground level".

Basically, what it's like to actually live in the Inner Sea, sort of as a micro history.

I definitely like the idea of a Faces of Golarion product, but I suspect that it is a GM resource, not a player's companion.

Edition wars don't end, they just gain new factions.

Now it's:

Original vs Basic/Expert vs 1E vs BECMI vs 2E vs Rules Cyclopedia vs 3.0 vs 3.5 vs 4E vs Pathfinder vs Essentials vs various retro-clones vs other fantasy games

And 5E is about to join the fray.

Rules Cyclopedia is still the best version ever created. ;)

You must remember that, when 2e was released, a lot of people b#@#&ed about a lot of what you're talking about. Some of us never adopted 2e and continued with 1e because we didn't like the changes (made for completely non game related reasons, by the way, much of the same reasons demons and devils were changed to tanarii and whatever devils were).

Just history repeating, no big deal.

Others of us were already playing Palladium and Warhammer Fantasy by then. ;)

Perhaps the best approach to controlling the economy will be have 'yea old magic item shops' (as in the PF game) and they would set the maximum price an item can sell for. Players then crafting can choose to undercut this if they wish. This makes sense to me, IF the world is a sand-box then it exists even without PC's, and as such it must function economically without PC's, so, everything a PC can do must already exist in-game.

I actually think the opposite should be true. Eve has the best player driven economy I've ever seen. And it only stocks the basic stuff in the stores. The majority of important items are sold based on player set prices. Everything from how much time it takes to mine X mineral to how much of that mineral goes into a missile helps determine the prices set by the players along the way. When you get out to the frontier areas, there is nothing for sale that a player didn't put up for sale.

BTW, I like Eve's buy/sell order system far better than the "auction house" system. It keeps prices much more stable. With an auction, prices fluctuate with the population of the server hourly. When you can set 10,000 longswords at 5gp each in a week long sell order, prices quickly stabilize to match the needs of the game.

Then give me a method.

Here's the scenario, 1,000 players start, crafters provide enough gear to set up the 1,000 initial players, players upgrade to set 2.
wave 2 of 1,000 players starts.

How do we encourage and allow the crafters of group 2, to provide gear, when group 1 is getting rid of their outgrown gear? Group 1 just wants to get rid of it, they got their use of it, so they are all selling it below manufacturing cost.

How does craft group 2 make a profit?

I don't mind there being another solution, if you have it put it forward. I like comparing Plan 1. to plan 2. I dislike discussions of "I don't like plan 1, come up with something better".

First off, I don't think degrading items is really going to have the effect you are looking for. Either items are utterly destroyed regularly, which is Eve's primary method, or item's are trivially easy to repair. Somewhere in the middle is just going to be annoying to the players and drive people from the game, with not enough economical benefit.

In a game like WoW, binding equipment doesn't really pull stuff out of the economy except at the very highest tier of gear. So Group 1 is selling their level X drops because they already have an item of level X+1. The crafter is mostly just making gear for himself for many, many levels until they reach the super high tier. So that doesn't really work for a player driven economy.

So first off, I like Scott's idea that a PC crafter can put a gear up to 125%. That makes the trivial repair cost from an NPC not a big deal, but gives the PC crafters something to do.

Second, how about if crafters can break down items into raw materials. So if a thousand longswords are dumped on the market at below market value, Group 2 can buy them up, smelt them down, and use them to craft the items that are actually in demand for the market.

Third, a crafter should be able to improve an item. Why bother selling your longsword for cheap and buying a whole new +1 longsword, when it is cheaper for the crafter to "enhance" the blade instead? Then those resources that are being recycled from crap dumped on the market can be channeled into a used item.

All it takes for a functioning economy is fluid opportunities for transactions. I don't have all the answers, but there have to be a lot more creative things people can be spending their gold on than repairing gear all the time.

deinol wrote:

You know what I love about my Pathfinder table top game? I've never had to worry about replacing my magic sword because it "wore out".

There are plenty of ways to make a functioning economy without adding depreciation calculus to the game.

You clearly aren't fighting enough Vampire barbarians with improved sunder and adamantine greatswords. Or rust monsters if you prefer something less zany. I prefer the zany myself.

I prefer item destroying monsters to be a rare threat, not a regular annoyance. Besides, at any point that you'd be facing Vampire barbarians you should have access to Make Whole.

Yes, I realize Pathfinder doesn't have a functioning economy. But I still think you can make a functioning economy without serious equipment degradation. Or gear binding for that matter.

As it is, binding only effects maybe .1% of the gear you come across. Far more loot tends to get resold.

Repair costs are either so trivial that they don't materially effect the economy, or they are so crippling that they retard the economy and frustrate the players. It seems to me the answer has to be elsewhere.

You know what I love about my Pathfinder table top game? I've never had to worry about replacing my magic sword because it "wore out".

There are plenty of ways to make a functioning economy without adding depreciation calculus to the game.

I posit the NPC gallery isn't for typical NPCs of their station, but interesting ones. I don't need stats for a commoner 1 beggar. AC 10, HP 4 will suffice. I need stats for when I want a beggar that is important.

The only reason I haven't used the gallery more is that my game was level 12+ when it came out. When I start my next campaign (likely Kingmaker) I will use these a lot.

I created extended encounter charts for the first section of the Kingmaker Adventure Path. These replace the charts for volumes 1 and 2. When the characters explore the southern half of the Greenbelt, add 10 to the roll to increase the danger. The River/Lake chart is only intended to be used about half the time. The other half, use the type of terrain that the river flows through.

Monster sources include: Bestiary 1, Bestiary 2, Bestiary 3, Tales of the Margreve, Margreve Web Compilation, Tome of Horrors Complete, and Forgotten Foes.

These charts will make the encounters a little more challenging and the forest a lot more scary.

Specific PoD services require PDFs to be set up in specific ways. Especially when it comes to covers. So unless a PDF was designed for a specific PoD service from the beginning, it can take a non-trivial amount of work from the layout staff to set up.

Popular PDFs do tend to be good candidates for print compilations.

Most of my MMO experience is with EVE, where some stuff is destroyed if your ship blows up. I made plenty of money primarily as a crafter. I made ammo. Ammo is always in demand in a war zone. I set up my buy (ore) and sell (ammo) orders to make money while I was offline. Then I could spend my online time having fun.

There are ways to have a functioning economy without binding gear.

I definitely want a faction reputation system, like Pathfinder uses for magic schools and other factions. It would be a great way to earn access to prestige classes, which I see as optional skill/power/talent trees that could be trained.

Edit: gaining rep in some factions should decrease your rep in opposing factions as well.

That said, I have been working to get some more swashbucklery archetypes into the softcover books here and there... but I've been somewhat tentative on the hopes that some day...

We can expect at least one swashbuckler archetype in Pirates of Golarion, right? I would expect Skull and Shackles to be another good place to expand on the concept.

If the PVP aspect is anything like EVE I am in.

For those of you who don't want to PVP, that's ok too.

Take a look at the Eve Political Map.

See the big dark region in the center? That's the zone where you are safe. That's the established, computer controlled kingdom. If you try to start something there, the guards will destroy you. I am certain there will be plenty of developer designed content within safe zone to keep the PvE only players happy. There has to be enough there to make James Jacobs happy. I think you will be fine.

Not look at the colored sections around the map. That's the wilderness. The wilderness will quickly be conquered as PCs build nations. Nations and alliances will shift. I've played EVE in the goon swarm. I can tell you, living in Goon controlled territory as a Goon or a Goon ally? 99.999% safe. Because they organize patrols to hunt for intruders.

So when I wanted to PVE, I hung out doing my own thing in Goon territory. As safe as anyone in the computer controlled region could be.

When I wanted to PVP I could join one of the hunting patrols or raiding parties or if I was really lucky I happened to be free during the siege of a major system.

I could do either freely as I desired. It was awesome.

An open PVP system doesn't mean lawless anarchy. An open PVP system where players can build castles and towns and stores and whatever means the players will make the laws. As long as there is enough territory to go around that any one faction can't conquer it all, there will be places to visit.

And if I learned anything from the goons, its that even the newest player can make a difference. If you and another 1000 Paizonians here decide to band together and make the kingdom of shiny paladins, land of safety, you can make that happen. Hell, you can count on my sword.

What are people's favorite level 9 offensive spells/combos?

Another thought. If aerial attacks are a common threat, underground bunkers would be more secure than castles. Might explain why there are so many dungeon complexes around.

Anybody who says the changes were as significant between 2e and 3e as between 3e and 4e is drinking paint thinner

The changes to multiclassing, adding skills and feats, radical changes to initiative, the full-round action to make a full attack, altering casting times for spells (to go with the initiative changes), standardizing attribute bonuses, prestige classes, etc. I'm certain there is more that I am forgetting.

There were a number of substantial changes to the core of the game which couldn't be simply hand-waved away. I say this as a 3.5/Pathfinder GM who runs a lot of 2nd edition adventures. Can I convert them? Yes. But I have to rebuild NPCs from the ground up.

Both edition changes made radical changes. Far more radical than 1E -> 2E. The difference really comes down to if you liked the changes or not.

Nice try, but you are not going to bait me with that. Your comparison doesn't hold up. AD&D/2e to 3.x isn't anywhere near as radical a change as 3.x to 4e. At least 2e and 3e were recognizable as pen and paper RPGs and each edition was making the game better. 4e is actually closer to what D&D started out as. A way to add RPG elements to a miniture game. Now with 4e we have gone full circle and it is all about simplifying the game so you can play it with minitures. No depth or in my opinion heart. 4e has taken the Role playing out of D&D and replaced it with Roll playing.

Actually, 2E -> 3E had some very radical changes. The only difference is that you liked those radical changes, so you feel it made the game better.

You are right that 4E tried to bring the game back to simpler roots. Some people like that approach, others did not.

I am a big Pathfinder supporter. But I also like some of the things they did with 4E. I think Gamma World is an excellent game. But I'm the sort of gamer who likes playing different games and trying new things.

I really want the Immortals boxed set, updated with a modern approach for rules design.

I must admit, the Condition card deck has been a very useful tool in keeping my game going with minimal rules references. I highly recommend it.

I just wish I had some for spells.

deinol wrote:

I have already stated I would buy a slim rules reference.

Isn't that implicit in "superscriber?"

Actually, as a superscriber I feel I need to be vocal about my preferences. Since my sales data is flat, the only feedback they can get is me being vocal about my preferences on the boards. If Paizo planned a product I really didn't want, I would temporarily drop a sub. I'm not a subscriber to Pathfinder Battles. I plan to pick some up, but I can't commit to a whole case.

I think we are on the same page, it's all good. I've been reading a lot of ancient history lately, so I've been musing about the rise and fall of ancient empires. What would the world look like if the Aztecs had risen to power and conquered Europe? What if Alexander's Empire had lasted longer? Lot's of interesting possibilities to explore in alternate history RPGs...

Wake me when the gunslinger is better than any caster in the game.

At first I thought the idea of going back to city-states would be a cool idea. Then I realized Irvine and Annaheim would have to go to war over control of Orange County. (CA)

PS: Everybody has ancestors who did terrible things. You just haven't looked far enough back.

Did I mention we all have the brain worms?

All of the PCs in my game are named Bort. I feel your pain.