tadkil's page

Of course, places like Andoran would quickly develop this sort of magic and make it a feature of public works programs. Likewise, the traditional issue for medival armies on campaign was the limitations of forage and cosnequence health issues for the common soldier.

This magic addresses both those issues.

I do not see it as a problem, rather as a narrative opportunity.

tadkil wrote:

As a separate note, I would like to see reviews from folks who were not directly involved in the playtest.

This has some contractual marketing taint to it, imho.

I believe Samuel Weiss put up a review somewhere around here that was largely negative of 4E (Sam says he was a playtester).

Also, another negative review was posted on Mr Myxztlpzy's (uh ... yeah something like that) blog, and then linked to on this forum. I think Joela put up a semi-positive first look review, but I'm not 100% sure.

Cheers! :)

Yeah, Sam is really disappointed. I am ok with the system so far, and see it as different but ok.

I'd like to see what some professional reviewers do. I am a big believer in journalistic objectivity.

Ha! That's hilarious. To the extent it's a legitimate complaint, underling hit it on the head as to the magnitude (extremely minor and based largely on feelings of long neglect for Greyhawk.) It's people that go into hysterics over this one stupid sentence that are looking to be offended without a legitimate complaint.

Anyway, you've got a definition above, I don't feel I need to elaborate on it or offer a better one.

Which planet in our solar system was discovered first?

Who first discovered America?

If you say anything other than Earth or the first dude over the Siberian landbridge, I will be offended at your slight.

Normally I find your your inssights useful and telling but I think this is markedly unfair.

This is clearly a tactical decision about IP and brand and a political stance on the part of WOTC. Some people find it alienating.

4.0 is not diminished as a system by this observation. It says more about how the company is positioning itself than the structure of the rules.

It really is ok to allow folks their responses.

Sebastian wrote:

They were the first two campaign settings.

They were not the first two campaign settings.

The Greyhawk folio was first published in 1980 with the boxed set following in 1983.
Mystara (The Known World) received the first significant mention in 1981 in the Expert Rulebook, although the first gazzetter did not come out until 1987.

The first Dragonlance adventures were released in 1984, with the hardcover first published in 1987.
The first Forgotten Realms boxed set was published in 1987, with its first adventure appearing in 1985.

I have written for Dave Arneson and have talked to him at length about the origin of the game. Blackmoor was technically the first setting to house the game. However, I think Greyhawk and Blackmoor were developed simultaneously and really need to be understood as parallel efforts to develop the original system.

In thi we are talking about the support materials developed with the old white box and consequent to Chainmail.

As a separate note, I would like to see reviews from folks who were not directly involved in the playtest.

This has some contractual marketing taint to it, imho.

Nice review! He makes good points about the design goals of 4E that folks on these boards should try to understand better before bashing it about the head and shoulders so much.

Hopefully it will draw back in some folks who might have left the game and bring them back either to 4E or PFRPG. Or both!

I agree with Pete on this.

We are now like the old AD&D crew railing against the Red Box. It has its place and will be fun for mroe casual play.

As a second option make them warrior 1, adept 1. Still sets as CR 1, and gives you wand use. Scale up the adept levels or switch to Sorc 1 or wizard 1 as you think appropriate.

I add my voice to this. Good work by all.

Now give us more specifc instruction as to what you need form us interms of playtest feedback and we will truly be able to rock for you.

Anybody done some XP projectiosn to see how the monsters in any given episode tally up? I am seeing a substantially slower climb than in 3.0/3.5. Note I do not consider this a problem, actually.

Kind of like replicators in Star Trek huh?

Your brother in nerdyness.

Tad

Which XP chart are you using? The fast chart should be pretty much the same as the 3.5 XP system.

I am using the medium chart right now, although we have talked about using the slow chart.

It's not perfectly lined up.

Here's the XP chart from Pathfinder:
Character Experience Point
Level Slow Medium Fast
1st — — —
2nd 3,000 2,000 1,300
3rd 7,500 5,000 3,300
4th 14,000 9,000 6,000
5th 23,000 15,000 10,000
6th 35,000 23,000 15,000
7th 53,000 35,000 23,000
8th 77,000 51,000 34,000
9th 115,000 75,000 50,000
10th 160,000 105,000 71,000
11th 235,000 155,000 105,000
12th 330,000 220,000 145,000
13th 475,000 315,000 210,000
14th 665,000 445,000 295,000
15th 955,000 635,000 425,000
16th 1,350,000 890,000 600,000
17th 1,900,000 1,300,000 850,000
18th 2,700,000 1,800,000 1,200,000
19th 3,850,000 2,550,000 1,700,000
20th 5,350,000 3,600,000 2,400,000

Here's the XP Chart from the PHB:
1st 0
2nd 1,000
3rd 3,000
4th 6,000
5th 10,000
6th 15,000
7th 21,000
8th 28,000
9th 36,000
10th 45,000
11th 55,000
12th 66,000
13th 78,000
14th 91,000
15th 105,000
16th 120,000
17th 136,000
18th 153,000
19th 171,000
20th 190,000

Fast mirors 3.5 up until 7th and the slows down considerably. I haven't played with the XP system, but whe I aran the math for the encounters in Edge of Anarchy using the PfRPG and compared them back to the XP table, i could see my folks would land just at 3, an maybe just under 3 by the end of the episode. Looked to me like 7 days to the Grave woud be jsut that unless I got them some more XP.

Anybody else played with this yet?

What would be really useful to me is notes from staff or other people running a playtest as to what they are tracking, and what ideas seem to need evalaution and discussion.

I can run the game like a focus group and post player reactions and survey data if needed, but I think we add more bandwidth to the discussion if we have some collective targets we are researching.

Thoughts?

I also agree with Disciple of Sakura (and have proposed the same).

For me, I could not play Pathfinder without houseruling it. I think as far as skill combinations go, that is the hardest to 'detangle', and remains the single most likely thing to keep me from converting.

What I've done is build a playtest table and I am putting the mechanics through the ringer. Atlanta has a huge gaming community so I am able to recruit newbies and veterans and build a good focus group.

Which is exactly why Spellcraft should be rolled into Knowledges and Concentration should be retained as a skill. It's a much better idea, since Concentration is tied to several "non-core" mechanics (Psionics, Diamond Mind maneuvers, etc), and it's keyed off CON, which doesn't favor only one main caster (Wizards) over all the others.

excellent point

Anybody up to doing an entry summarizing the ideas so far? I have to work today...

Have you ever seriously considered printing a monster manual with maybe more pages, but also with BIGGER pages. Is there any industry related reason why all RPG books seem to be the same size as the 3.5 D&D core books? Something to do with the dimensions of shop shelves, for example, or what size bookcases most people have in their homes?

It's like when you used to build something in shop. If you are using standard lengths and sizes of wood to build something, you do it in less time. Paizo formats and sizes are standard for their class. As a result, their costs are minimalized. If they step outside of the set sizes, this requires different press configurations, and potentially specialty paper orders to feed the configuration.

I think it would rock to have a big old tome to play with, but I think the costs of printing would drive the price point out of reach.

I'm still waiting for people to post new ideas or their own rules in the right forum.

There's a reason for the New Rules forum, to keep feedback separate from the people who think "how I would do it" is what they're looking for.

Until there's more playtesting going on and less speculating, you can harp all you want about moderation and tone and working together, it means nothing. Granted I'm no angel, but hey, it's the truth.

If you could go take a look at my playtest notes and let me know how you think I can make them more useful and comprehensive, I would appreciate it.

I am running CoCT in PfRPG and using the medium advancement path.

Thanks.

I have written for ZG and for Dave Arneson, have had him DM for me, ran his MMRPG for two years and had the pleasure of many meals, many discussions, and some really solid DMing advice. I wrote Riders of Hak and contributed to The Player's Guide and the Softcover Campaign Guide.

Dave and Gary didn't always get along, but I KNOW that they ultimately respected each other's work and contribution to our hobby. To discount them is revisionist history and offensive to me on some basic levels.

Yes Blackmoor came first, but Greyahwk was right there with it, and I really think you cannot understand the development of one without the development of the other.

Folks, I think the most productive way for us to approach this discussion, and the support we offer Paizo, is not to try to "beat" each other. In that I mean, we should be more focused on how to make other people's ideas work, as opposed to proving our own.

Now why do I say this? It may seem counter-intuitive. Isn't that what has made the internet what is is? Isn't it a glorious place where one can match wits and deploy one's ideas with knowledge and vigor? Well, yes, but is that what Paizo needs from us?

The Open Playtest is a gift and an investment in this community. Note the word, community. It is also central to a business model that I respect. In effect, the OGL belongs to all of us, as it is open code and we can shape it and use it as we want. PFRPG invites us to continue that tradition of active and participatory evolution.

So what are we offering Paizo in this discourse? I think the best thing we can do is offer Jason and his team are options. We can take the ideas we find, pound them on the collaborative anvil of our collective reason and forge them in the fires of healthy and productive debate. If we work to strengthen each others ideas, as opposed to overcome them, then we will help develop a more diverse and stronger pool of ideas for teh designers to pick from. We can trust them. Really. Look what they have give us so far.

So when we look at the monk, for example, we can talk about all the different things that we can do with the class and its abilities to make it work in many venues and many different ways. Noone is right. Noone is wrong. Everyone is playing and building their game with the tools we are given in the OGL and the PFRPG.

The Pathfinder team can be fed by us. We can take their designs and field test them and offer feedback. We can discuss how the mechanics work and do not work. We can talk about what can be done to make the rules more flexible and customizable and adaptive.

Or, we can fight, and be rude, and soak ourselves in our egos and play to the stereotype of self-absorbed geeks who take their game and their opinions WAY too seriously.

In short, we can be part of the problem, or we can be part of the solution. We can create, or we can destroy.

I for one, am about building this game and this community.

Come on. Let's PLAY! Let's help each other. Let's make it better.

Tad Kilgore

The note I keep hitting, here and elsewhere is that flexibility of design makes the game the most adaptable to different play styles.

I have no problem with any fundamental adaption if it opens the gateway to s better game at somebody's table.

I also think that PfRPG gets stronger when it is designed around the ability to customize and modulate teh ruelsw set to the play style you want.

That being said, deploying a series of feats that allow a ranger to repsoition himself or herself in relationship to armor is reasonable. The Dm always has the abiltiy to say, "Not in my game." Another DM might say, "Yeah, in my game, because I want to do a dwarven underground Orc war and it fits."

The core rules set should be fairly rigid. Other ideas should be presented as possible variants that can be modularly assembled and chosen by the DM to support any specific narrative structure.

As a matter of fact, a section or chapter in the PFRPG DMG should talk about layering and shaping variants to achieve a specfic campaign style and narrative structure.

But, in my game, rangers wear light armor.

I love/hate random hit points! I think it's evident how wonky the rule is given the number of house rules in existence to change them. I suspect that the number of tables that run a straight roll-once-keep-it type HD roll is a substantial minority.

But, I love them too. Why? Because it's fun rolling dice. And it's particularly fun rolling the maximum for such an important roll. Once each level, you have a single die roll that will determine a significant portion of your character's power, and it makes for a very dramatic roll...

Unless you get a 2. Then it sucks.

So, I think that's why HD rolls are so well loved and yet so house ruled. It's extremely awesome when you score max HD and it's a big pile of suck when you get a low roll.

That being said, I can't say that fixed hit points is my ideal situation. I can appreciate the simplicity of it, but rolling HD is such a part of D&D, it's hard to surrender.

WORD!

I have always used random HP in my home games.

I use max hp at first level and them roll dice moving forward.

I also us random hp for bad guys too, and factor that into designs.

As I tailor my designs for the players at table, their relative hit points are part of that design. Variance in HP add contour and distinctive identity to the characters. Every third level fighter does not have the same HP total. Likewise, each third level fighter has to make different choices in terms of acquired resources and tactical choices as a result too.

It adds diversity.

From a design perspective, Paizo would be well suited to present multiple HP generation options as valid in a game, and allow DMs to tailor as needed. What I do is cool. What you do is cool. The decision should be up to the DM and his or her players.

In overarching design philosophy flexibility and customization trumps the specific every time.

tadkil wrote:

I am looking at having my playtest group run D1 because they are going to lag behind in XP compared to a tradional 3.5 xp climb. I have a six person party and I don't think they can get far enough up level fast enough without additional ecnounters. Are you using the new XP table? I am trying to model teh medium advancement path, although my players have talked about using the slow path so they can roleplay in Korvosa more.

Actually, I was using the UA fixed XP table, which is only 5-10% off of the pathfinder table, so I converted this past session with 0 changes at 3rd and 4th level.

I am using the fast path, but I'm taking my leisurely time with roleplaying encounters. If they gain friends and contacts in (my version of) Korvosa, all the better for later ...

Yeah, they are really turned on by the slower progression. It feels more like 1.0/2.0 progression to us, and they feel like they can get to know their characters more effectively as a result. I like it too from that perspective.

I was thinking about substituting the Lamm's Lambs kids in D1 and sending them off to save them. This would give them a group of potential cohorts down the road, and also some really interesting contacts. Half of my players chose to be "Ex" Lambs so they all have a deep connection to the kids. Want to build that a bit...

Also was playing around with having the Thieve's Guild stage a hit on them or frame them for something after they take out All The World's Meats.

Vic Wertz wrote:

Kruelaid wrote:

By the way, how did a used pair of XL Fruit of the Loom briefs get into my package?

Hey, man, we don't question what you order, you don't question what we ship.

Do subscribers also get underwear in .pdf format for free?

DAMN. That was funny.

Is there an ETA on these?

I am looking at having my playtest group run D1 because they are going to lag behind in XP compared to a tradional 3.5 xp climb. I have a six person party and I don't think they can get far enough up level fast enough without additional ecnounters. Are you using the new XP table? I am trying to model teh medium advancement path, although my players have talked about using the slow path so they can roleplay in Korvosa more.

I've developed a six person table

Monk 1 Female Half Chelaxian/Varisian
Paladin 1 Male Half-Orc
Rogue 1 Male Chelaxian/Shoanti/Varisian Mutt
Generalist Wizard 1 Male Pureblood Chelaxian Noble
Cleric of Desne 1 Female Varisian
Elven Fighter 1 (Archer) Female

The monk is a newbie. The Wizard hasn't played since 2.0. The Elf has been out of gaming for three years having a baby and being Mom. Rogue is a power gaming LG kind of guy. Cleric is a diehard 3.0/3.5 gamer. The Paladin is a lifetime gamer and published author. He and I orchestrated the table to get an effective focus group across many levels of experience and rules knowledge.

The players very much liked the flavor and mechanics of the Harrow deck and like the flavor of the city. One of them called in Ayn Rand meets Venice with Dodge City thrown in for the showdowns.

On to mechanics
Channeling. Rocks. Rocks. Rocks.
The players cased the Fishery over the course of 2 days to track the activity of their targets. They did recon under the pier and decided to infiltrate the underside of the complex at low tide.

*Note: Effects of tides on the rivers need to be defined*

The players went straight into a conflict with the gator. What ensured was 17 round running conflict as waves of the bad guys came after the PCs. Gaedrin sniped and then barricaded himself into his room.

Roles
Wizard—Mage handing the dagger was effective and used constantly. The mage’s power was reasonable and allowed him to feel useful. Also took toughness and had enough hit points not to be fragile. I used the full HD option for starting HP. The D6/D8/D10 hp projections work very well. Used his Color Spray and Sleep to take down the children so there was a minimal bloodbath.

Rogue—Guy rolled 18/18/17/14/12/14. He nearly wet himself. Built a flail using disarm specialist. I am glad to report that the CMB works well and is simple.

Cleric—the healing mechanic is awesome so far at low levels. Cleric had five turning attempts that all worked as area heals. She’s a veteran and took Selective Channeling. Kept the entire party on their feet as a result. Would have been horrible otherwise.

Paladin—The half –orc stay on your feet thing kept the paladin in the fight. Too early to how the class will play out as we rise in level.

Monk—The character was mobile and agile and able to provide flanks for his peers. The strengths of the class will play out as he levels. We are excited about the Ki pool. Feats need to be developed that augment this.

Archer fighter—Played like 3.5. No new news here.

Players like the new skill system. Newbies found it easy to understand, veteran like the new cross class option.

XP Issues: Looks like I will need to pack another module into the arc if I want to keep up with the Pathfinder XP climb. Now, I like this as it makes level advancement feel more like 1.0 & 2.0, but it is hard for me to play test the entire A.P. I am thinking about rolling out D1 and having the Falcon’s Hollows kids be Lamm’s Lambs.

All in all, a successful first play test with happy players all around.

I have a monk and a paladin in my CoCT playtest. The Monk will most likely multi-class as a rogue because of his experiences so far. The paladin is going to stay straight class.

I think the mechanic needs to be playtested hard. That will determine its durability and appropriateness.

You could create a feasible Paladin-Rogue with a good character background (and, of course, a good ex-Rogue-Paladin), but many "rogue maneuvers", like flanking an enemy already in melee and going for a backstab sneak attack would be quite incompatible with a code of honor.

This is really a flavor issue and campaign specific. youa re making assumptions based on a high fantasy cmapaign based on medieval europe. What if the campaign focused on an oppressed underclass focused on fighting a tyranical overlord. Couldn't a paladin/rogue in this environment use his skills in the same way a NAVY Seal uses his to infiltrate and execute. Wouldn't this be acceptable?

The Pathfinder world looks to be vast and multi-cultural. There is space on it for every interpretation.

OneWinged4ngel wrote:

*Has an allergic reaction to peanut butter and goes off to the hospital.*

:(

Ack! Good thing I didn't give you any. :) Have some homemade oreos instead.

I betcha they dip really well in mead...

I pester these guys all the time; ask them to reorganize moy orders, ask them to chenge my shipping options, foget to replace expired credit cards, etc.

They always handle it well, and respond quickly and with humor.

Paizo rocks.

I have tried to talk positively about what I enjoy about both systems, and also discuss what I find repugnant about the business and marketing strategy that underpins 4.0.

My experience so far has been that I am not gung ho enough to satisfy the partisans on either side. Likewise, when I discuss what I see as problematic in how the customer base has been valued in the process, this sets off hisses, howls and catcalls.

It is disenheartening to see and frustrating to watch.

tadkil wrote:

In LG, I have seen roleplaying episodes like "Rites of Eternal Spring" written by Eric Menge

Geoff has some of the best mods ever written for this game. I wish WotC would publish a Best of LG compilation.

The rights reverted back to the authors after the play period. WoTC doesn't own the episodes. I wrote a Sheldomar and three Ulek episodes.

tadkil wrote:

I am of the "why can't we all just get along" school of thought.

Because you're wrong.

(See. I'm totally going to win this debate.)

I think the sentiment is great, but the chance of geeks actually respecting each other's respective opinions is pretty slim. Still, it is fun to watch.

And as verbal driveby shootings go, 9.5 from the Irish judge.

I am of the "why can't we all just get along" school of thought.

We're American. Ball kicking is what we do!

Edit: Only absurdist (is that a word?) humor allows me to really stick around here. Otherwise, I'd have been driven off long ago as well. Even as is, I've been feeling a push to move to greener pastures more often than not lately ...

Stay and frolic.

And adsurdist is word most commonly applied to the plays of Beckett, Pinter, and Pirandello.

Most of the quotes we have been rolling back and forth here are both attempts within all systems (3.0/3.5/4.0) to coach a DM on how to run his or her game and how to develop his or her narrative.

I really do not see how either edition of the game is more or less RP focused than the other. I think that 4.0 has been informed by other gaming experiences and that impacts the flavor rather substantially. Whether or not 4.0 is an evolutionary leap or dead end will be determined by the marketplace.

In LG, I have seen roleplaying episodes like "Rites of Eternal Spring" written by Eric Menge out of Geoff/Va., be absolutely destroyed by DMs who did not value the RP component of the game and could not execute on it. Running COCT in Pathfinder requires an effective and fluid narrative style heavily focused on character to be done well.

D&D is about telling a story. Some stories are Henry V and about action, and some stories are Hamlet and about character and the comtemplation of action. Regardless, of which system you use, the ability to animate that story and bring it to life is based on teh skill of the DM, and not the system.

I've bought my 4.0 stuff already. LFR will determine what else I need to buy to stay current in that arms race.

Tad

Your bard does not suck - but most do. When forming tables at a con for LG people go looking for clerics, fighters, rogues, and wizards. If you have a bard or monk you will get a whole lot of "thanks but no thanks".

LG is its own play style, as is LA and Blackmoor. Powergaming (and this is not a judgement, just an observation, I have written for and administrated MMRPGS) dominates roleplaying in most MMRPGs.

Bards are not built for the hacky end of the power curve. However, in my home game that is about working contacts and getting the correct information to solve problems, the bard is King.

Y'all rock.

But yeah, it's a three year program, you take the bar after your done, sell your soul, and bam, begin practicing.

Dr. Sebastian

When do you get the number of the beast branded on your wrist and the government tracking chip installed?

I'm not a fan of 4th Edition. Neither the "crunch" nor "flavor" of the rules support the type of play I enjoy. The sales strategy involved in the game design (ie new core rules every year requiring a certain lack of completion in the first set of core rules) turns me off. I don't like some of the things that the designers have said about 3rd edition, nor the implications about its fans. I vehemently dislike disparaging attitudes displayed on message boards by fans of both editions about their "opposites".

D&D 4th edition seems to be a game that is going to appeal to a wide player base. If they can adopt better modes of marketing for the planned "gain new customers" mass marketing in 2009, more power to them- and, to the hobby in general.

I hope that 4th Edition is a huge success. I hope that the online content improves greatly by Friday. I really hope that the sales results encourages Hasbro to keep the brand and continue to put its considerable resources behind its marketing and developing.

I also hope that the Pathfinder RPG from Paizo Publishing garners the kind of success that Paizo, as a consumer friendly, communicative, and talented company deserves. I plan on supporting them as they have chosen to support a version of D&D that my gaming group and I enjoy much more than 4th edition.

So, here's to you, 4th Edition. May your sales be HUGE, may you attract new customers, and may both old and new customers gain years and years of enjoyment out of playing you. Congratulations on the sell-through of the first run, WOTC.

WORD

Dang. The boxed set is #4 right now on Amazon.

I am surprised, but not really disappointed as it means there still is a future for my game! :-)

tadkil wrote:

1) Cite your sources. How do you know it is outstripping sales projections? How do you have this data?

Several WoTC people (Mearls, as in Mike Mearls, in his private blog for example) have stated that the first print sold out (this has also been documented other places (was it forbes?).

Logic would dictate that if they have sold out before the release, 4e sells better than their sales projections.

In the same blog it was also stated that 4e's initial print was 50% bigger than 3.5's initial print, which again was bigger than 3.0's initial print. There is some debate as to how much 3.0 sold in it's initial print, but, numbers like 200.000 was supposedly mentioned by Dancey back in the day.

Excellent! I just didn't know. Does anyone know how that compared to 3.5?

I have heard from a more than a few people here that Wizards has abandoned their fans with 4e.

How is that even vaguely possible given the dramatic pace of sales - outstripping even WotC's predictions.

1) Cite your sources. How do you know it is outstripping sales projections? How do you have this data?

2) The goal of the design is to produce a game that would appeal to a broader market. To say that it has sold well, is not to say that the core and old market is not disenfranchised to a certain extent. This is the same challenge faced by TV and newspapers. Everytime they attempt to reinvent themselves to acquire a younger demographic, a percentage of their audience migrates off into competing medium.

3) I would not say that Hasbro has adandoned its fan base. I would say it has refocused on a different audience. It's a business strategy with rewards and risks. Individuals who feel abandoned represent the negative consequence of that decision. Individuals such as yourself who play the role of partisan and activist for the product are the benefit.

Some curious facts about the "emphasis on role-playing" of 3.5E compared to 4E:

- The 3.5E PHB has three paragraphs of how to build the personality of your character. The 4E PHB has more than an entire page.

- The 3.5E PHB has one paragraph of how to role-play a dwarf. The 4E PHB has five paragraphs.

- The 4E PHB/DMG present various evocative, non-combat artwork. The 3.5 core books basically show iconic characters making poses and slaughtering.

It's undeniable that both the 4E PHB and DMG have a stronger focus on RP than its 3.5E counterparts. And the reason of this is exactly the fact that it's intended for "World of Warcraft and like" players - it has to tell its new players of how role-playing is like, unlike the 3.5E core books that seem to assume that every reader is a 10-30 years veteran and wouldn't waste time reading this "personality" stuff.

Point taken. There are some fine build outs and explanations of basic archetypes.

The art issue... that's more aesthetics than anything else. I could go page by page and argue how this or that stance is more or less RP focused or not. This is too deeply focused on personal taste to be productive.

However 4.0 is not any more or less of a RP system than 3.5. That depends on the stories told by the DM and his or her particular skill set, and the destires of the players.

Hasbro does need to develop better adventures, however, if it is focused on cultivating a greater RP focus, which I am not certain is the concern of the designers.

Keep in mind, I am playing both, and do not have a fundamental problem with 4.0 as a mechanic or a system. I have argued elsewhere in this forum that 4.0 is an extension of the design philosophy of the old D&D/basic/red box and 3.0/3.5 are an extension of the old AD&D design philosophy. I loved and played both games then and I will do the same now.

I am glad that Paizo has kept the 3.5 rules set alive with PFRPG as there is much I value in 3.5. I see 4.0 & 3.5 as markedly different version of the same game descended from two different approaches to the game. D&D---->2.0------->4.0 AD&D--->2.0------>3.0/3.5.

Sorry if I have threadjacked.

I have two different groups I am running right now. I have about 20 players who want on my table. I am currently rotating folks off after every adventure path. The only person who always gets a chair at my table is my wife. Likewise, if I gack you, someone else gets your chair. I run a six person table. Other folks in the group DM other

Adult pool:
Age range: 19-43
Gender mix: 8 women, 13 men.
Youngest player: 19 year old woman
Oldest Player: 44 year old woman
Teens/twenties: 10
30s: 7
40s: 4 I am 40.

Everyone over 30 is married.

Everyone is either in college or grad school, or in a profession.

A third of my players make six digits a year or more.
Several are teachers, which is what my wife does.

Kid Pool: I run a bi-weekly team for the neighborhood kids and my sons.
Ages 7-14. 4 boys and 2 girls.
This is the BEST GAME EVER! If you don't run a kids game, consider it. It's how we grow the game, and it is also a great way to rememebr why you started playing.

RP is more driven by the skill set and disposition of the DM than by the system. When I am running 4.0 for the RPGA, I will make certain there are RP elements present, as I value this as a DM and like to create these components for my players.

4.0, conceptually as a marketing platform, is not focused on gamers with a traditional focus on RP. Rather, it is focused on attracting 20 somethings that cut their teeth on World of Warcraft and not on paper and pencil RPGs. This anchors the design philosophy. It colors the design of the rules and the strucutre of the books.

As I peruse the books, I see a streamlined, simpler game, focused on rapid and cinematic play style. It is a different game, targeting a different market, and focused on a different demographic. I do not find the mechanics particularly offensive, but I clearly see they owe as much to D&D minis as they do the work of Arneson and Gygax.

So, is it RP friendly? Is is RP hostile? No to both questions. It's a new design. Time will tell how durable it is.

Most certainly the adventures released to date are more hack than chat. That tells me quite a bit how the designers relate to this system.

Northwest of Earth followed by Secret of Sinharet.

I have enjoyed everything so far, however.

It's in the FAQ

FAQ

Just cause it's FAQ'ed doesn't mean it's not cheesy!