veector's page

Also, just so I'm clear about my original post, it was comments like the one below that really bothered me enough to post the link:

"People are able to be more in depth with their characters because in past you would to worry about your character's build and if you didn't have the perfect build for that character, then you would never have a fun time. Instead you don't have to worry about your character's build as much since even a warlock who wanted to be more of a tank and deal a lot of ranged damage and not worry about charisma would be able to do that."

veector wrote:

For example, as I understand it, 4e intends for DMs to design around the "encounter" concept so that players can distinguish when they can and can't use powers. Previous editions did not have this. I feel like it's a bit like forcing me to create separate mobs for the players to take on one at a time to guarantee game flow.

How would you encounters are designed in 3.x? Isn't it basically select an EL and pick some grouping of creatures whose CRs will give the selected EL?

I don't think I understand the point you are making here.

You don't need to design specific encounters in 3.5, but in 4e it seems like a necessity given the following situation:

Adventurers walk into a kobold lair, they fight an "encounter" with two kobold guards. The five kobolds in the next room hear the fight, they come running to help. The kobolds feel they are outmatched, so a few of them run away to call for help. The adventurers begin a running battle against the kobolds who are fighting defensively, fleeing, and calling for help all at the same time. More kobold reinforcements show up.

This is all 1 combat. Is it one encounter? Forgive me if I've simplified or used kobolds in a way they wouldn't normally react, I'm just trying to understand the way this would have been handled in 4e.

Looking over the early posts in the thread, I see a few common views:

1) Giving interesting options to characters, both in character creation and in encounters (both combat and non-combat.)
2) Having monsters that are easy to run, but with unique and interesting abilities and flavor.
3) Simplified mechanics, allowing for more emphasis on story and character.
4) Ease of design for the GM, both in creating adventures and running them.

Sorry to chime in so late, but I disagree with the positives of #3 and #4. I feel like they've actually put a straitjacket on a lot of design elements to a degree that if you're adventure doesn't fit into the mold they've created, you're not playing D&D.

For example, as I understand it, 4e intends for DMs to design around the "encounter" concept so that players can distinguish when they can and can't use powers. Previous editions did not have this. I feel like it's a bit like forcing me to create separate mobs for the players to take on one at a time to garauntee game flow.

This got me wondering, before the OGL, was anyone ever allowed to produce D&D compatible material? Judges Guild did for a while, but their license lapsed. Anyone else know of any 3rd party publishing for D&D before the OGL?

If you could take a classic adventure, such as Tomb of Horrors, and locate it in Golarion, where would you put it?

As for myself, I'd take Pharaoh (I3 TSR 9052 AD&D, my favorite adventure of all time) and locate in Osirion.

AP4 is called "Legacy of Fire" and will have an Arabian Nights feel to it. It's going to take place is Katapesh and similar areas.

Arabian Nights did you say? Scantily clad genies in transparent bottles did you say? Scimitars instead of longswords did you say?

*starts humming Ode to Joy*

The problem with the Game System Licence (GSL) is not that WoTC wants to take greater control of their product.

The problem, as stated by Green Ronin is "We do not, however, feel that this license treats third party publishers as valued partners."

The no going back clause is just another aspect of that attitude.

I guess they kinda feel like they were responsible in part for 3.0/3.5 success and I would agree.

The fact that WotC is basically saying to them "Thanks for the game guys, but we're taking our ball and going home." really smacks of elitism and protectionism to a, dare I say it, TSR degree.

I know I am addicted to Paizo Crack because I got back from vacation today (and had to go to work before I got home) and I used my lunch break to run home and check my mail. My latest shipment came and my first thought was, "Damn, I have a date tonight. I can't read this."

Babe, if you're reading this, its not true. I'm just trying to be funny. Love you.

What if you brought it along and asked her to read it to you?

A moi c'est l'amour...

I run the local meetup group for D&D and although I know that a lot of those guys are starting up 4e games or at least running trial adventures, I wanted to be sure I got people looking for Pathfinder as well. So I started a new meetup with "Pathfinder" in the name. When people do searches for RPG meetups, they also find Pathfinder and become intrigued.

I'd encourage others to do the same when advertising their games.

That's the sound of your OGL license being sucked away by Wizards.

I just read the GSL and the 4e SRD (or lack thereof). I have to agree with Green Ronin's reaction not to produce 4e material.

Someone has to dissent so it might as well be me. I feel I can manage combats well enough at high levels to thwart anything the PCs might come up with. I would rather see my collection of books stay more relevant over the long run.

veector wrote:

They're offering the 4e books as PDFs for download! What a concept! I have a feeling they deliberately waited until after the print launch to do this. Thank you Paizo for not cheeseying (sp?) out like this. Press release here

Umm.. I hate to break it to you but.. you do know they did this with the 3e books too?

Well, as far as I know, when 3E launched, PDF publishing online for profit was still slightly new. I feel like they cheesed out because they didn't offer the PDFs on launch day along with the print versions.

Having worked for B&N some years ago, in a management capacity, I can say for certain that there is very little control over inventory at the store level. These decisions were made higher up the corporate food chain.

I suspect that thier are regional buyers, and in addition, the stores computer system is very smart about reordering books and finding what does well in which geographic area.

Correctamundo. I found some Paizo products at B&N today and asked how decisions are made regarding whats in the store. The nice lady there said to give Customer Service a call if you want to see more of a particular product.

I called Customer Service and they said they wait for the publishers to contact them. I encouraged them to carry more Paizo products.

I'll still by from Paizo's web site, I'd just also like to see stuff on shelves to encourage others to see the quality Paizo produces.

Locworks wrote:

Drool...

I'm not sure rules for smoke inhalation (or whatever SRD stuff falls under the rubric of "Additional Rules") is enough to make me drool, personally.

That's where the Animal Companions with mine droppers rules are.

houstonderek wrote:

well, i was using the conversions for boot hill in the 1e dmg, so i guess d&d is universal also. hmmm. ALL rpg's are universal with a little thought!!!!

I remember Boot Hill! I call you and raise you; 'Monsters, Monsters'. Does anybody remember that? ( I know somebody will. Somebody else remembered Bunnies & Burrows for goodness sake.)

Monsters! Monsters! pic

I think you're right on the money with that assessment Fire Wraith.

was at the local Barnes and Noble bookstore tonight, and i received a rather nice surprise: they had in stock four Pathfinder books, two adventure ones, Classic Monsters Revisited(which i had my friend buy for me)and one of the guidebooks or something.

which is really cool, since a few months ago, they had none.

Since I don't know how this works... Does Paizo have to court buyers from B&N to get them to buy some of their stuff for the stores?

I'm quitting thinking I'm young anymore. I didn't think a gamer would ever have to explain to another gamer that they're a "tabletop" gamer.

I never thought I would feel old playing D&D, until I read this thread on dnd4.com.

The younger generation's view of roleplaying is SOOO much different than when I was the same age learning to play D&D.

They're offering the 4e books as PDFs for download! What a concept! I have a feeling they deliberately waited until after the print launch to do this. Thank you Paizo for not cheeseying (sp?) out like this.

Press release here

I'm not sure both versions are mutually exclusive. Roleplaying has always attracted a variety of people with a variety of play styles - long before WoW was even an idea.

I didn't mean to imply they were exclusive, sorry if it came across that way, just that it appears to me that WotC definitely sees a future in a certain style of play and wants to promote that. You can certainly try playing 4e material with any characters you want to play with, I just don't think you'll do so well.

I guess what I take issue with is WotC basically telling me I have to play the game the way they think it should be played as if D&D was a board game.

Every now and then I try to explain to my wife (a non-gamer) what the recent changes WotC has made to D&D has meant to me.

I try to use analogies to help her understand, but D&D players are a unique bunch. Very often our emotions are tied to the game and changes to the game, whether from house rules or Brand X publishing company elicit ecstatic huzzahs and/or vitriolic flame-fests. Roleplaying games make us feel things personally because very often it defines the relationships we have with others at the gaming table.

In reality, the problems that are occurring right now are due to different people seeing the same game in different ways. Some players view roleplaying as playing a role vis-a-vis the other adventuring party members, much the same way a demolitions expert might play a role in a military special ops squad. In this instance, game balance amongst the roles in the adventuring party is key to making everyone feel integral to the team. Other players view roleplaying on the character-personality level, where every player in the game has chosen an alter-ego that suits their fantasy no matter what the composition of the party might be. A party could be made up of all half-orc barbarians who all have distinct personalities. Both visions of roleplaying are perfectly acceptable.

However, when playing a roleplaying game in the first style of play, it is necessary to define what the purpose of that style of play is. If people have vastly differing views on their style of play, you have the vast arguments we have today regarding D&D 4th Edition. Some people see D&D one way (myself included) and others see it another way depending on what you enjoy doing at the gaming table.

It is regrettable, I feel, that WotC has decided to favor the first style of roleplaying over the latter. This is very much influenced by a change in popular culture in which the definition of roleplaying has been usurped by computer and video roleplaying games rather than tabletop roleplaying games.

I understand their decision from a business standpoint.

I understand their decision from a post World of WarCraft cultural standpoint.

It still doesn't mean I have to like it.

I do not work for either company so I can say this... Pathfinder, to me, despite the change in name, IS Dungeons & Dragons... 4th edition is, well, just 4th edition. I don't really connect the D&D name with 4e.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose

I guess nobody made it to the second part of my question...

Is there anything the Pathfinder rules should do to make it easier to DMs/GMs to run the game?

In other words, the simplification that comes with 4e helps DMs, limits PCs. Given that the DM is only 1 out of 5 (on average) players at the table, that may seem unbalanced. But if you look at the DM as 50%-80% of the content of the game as it is played, then that matters a lot more.

Should the DM rely on electronic tools (in or out of game) to help manage encounters in place of simplifying the game? Does this take away from being a storyteller and make the DM spend more time (too much time?) on monster management?

I've grown up and often thought about this question after several times being a player and not enjoying the experience as much as being the Dungeon Master. The things I think I love most about being a DM are...

1. Playing multiple characters, changing often
2. Being the guy throwing rocks/traps/goblins/various challenges at others.
3. Feeling like you always get to look behind the curtain while seeing the reaction of people to events occurring on stage.

So in thinking about this more and noticing how the shift in the role of the Dungeon Master with 4th Edition is that of Player Monster/Monster Manager/Guy who runs encounters rather than a storyteller.

I feel like being a storyteller/writer/actor is a big barrier to entry to playing roleplaying games and WotC is directing the game in a new direction to counteract that.

So I pose the question, which aspect/role/quality of being a Dungeon Master is the most difficult? In terms of running the game should rules be introduced to minimize this aspect with Pathfinder?

I haven't tried 4e yet, but my sister has. She plays in a 4e campaign with her friends and a 3.75 campaign with me. She tells me that 4e is alot "simpler" to learn and use(sort of a "pick up and play"), but 3.x has a lot more character definition.

I think your sister is right on the money here. In any game system, to make something simpler, it requires the reduction of player options. To most people who have played D&D up unto this point, it's the complexity and investment in learning the system that is part of the enjoyment of the game. Once you make that investment, the game continues to open up for you in multiple ways.

You know, you are right. I am shutting Paizo down forever right now and I am going to Bella Sara to play with the wittle horsies. If it is good enough for Sebastian, it is good enough for me!

-Lisa
ex-CEO
new Horse Groomer

You know, I was gonna start a thread called:

"To ME... and several local gamers, Bella Sara IS D&D" but since Lisa's switching to that now... maybe not. ;)

veector wrote:

Well, maybe not last chance, but post here anyway if you're done, you quit, you've packed up the trailer and are heading back to _______ (insert best game system of all time here).

You haven't seen the last of Barbados Slim!

Now goodbye, forever!

Love me a good FUTURAMA reference.

veector wrote:

Abstract wrote:

My group has ditched the D20 and switched to 2D10.

How do you roll a 1? (always a failure)

I'm guessing snake eyes

Ok, then how do you ever roll a 2?

My group has ditched the D20 and switched to 2D10.

How do you roll a 1? (always a failure)

I know it takes some reading, and with my post appearing at the bottom of the thread it won't show up well, but this post is exactly the kind of introspection into the PRPG and the 3.5e rules issues that is needed.

Hope that makes sense.

On the other hand, I think that the people that run Paizo are genuinely nicer, more in tune with their customers, and more open to the spirit of the OGL than WotC ever has been. And that is what has earned Paizo my loyalty as a customer. They've really made Pathfinder feel like it's our game, while the vibe of 4E has always been very much that it's the designers' game, and we should feel grateful that we're getting to play it.

Well spoken sir.

Callous Jack wrote:

*poof*

Well, that's that.

What's this thread about, now?

Isn't the point of this thread just to keep giving lastknight somewhere to post?

I was shocked to see that no one had actually started the article. So I did it just to add some brief information.

I'm not experienced enough with Wikipedia to know the conventions well enough to write comprehensive articles including links and such. So I'm calling out to get others to add to the article.

It would be preferable if someone other than Paizo folks could write about the Pathfinder RPG and make sure to keep it as unbiased as possible.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game on Wikipedia

You can create a 30 foot tall talking pineapple who fights with a stale baguette and suffers from explosive acidic, diarrhea.

Is that in a Dragon article I missed?

I'm incandescent with rage after reading the latest version of Pathfinder. It doesn't give me any rules for a druid who wants to install twin steam-powered machine guns and a minedropper on his animal companion. I'm going back to playing Car Wars. Enjoy your crappy game, losers!!!

Hear hear! Is that a gas-powered animal companion or a fuel-cell one?

Well spoken DM Dread.

Well, maybe not last chance, but post here anyway if you're done, you quit, you've packed up the trailer and are heading back to _______ (insert best game system of all time here).

veector wrote:

I like how nobody argued the merits of the original post. Just let the door hit him in the --- on the way out.

Um that may be because the entirety of the OP was a satire which was actually discussed and broken down on following pages even after Ogre outed my secret identity.

Yeah, I got that. But isn't the point that at least one person take you seriously? ;)

I like how nobody argued the merits of the original post. Just let the door hit him in the --- on the way out.

I'm goin to have to fully agree with you there.

I think Pathfinder is what 4th edition should have been.

I agree with the OP and the above quote. I personally feel that many players want to feel that they have a say in changes to rules for the game they love.

What WotC has done has taken 50% of what SOME players want and 50% of what their marketing/sales departments want and made that a new version of what they call D&D.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that 4th Ed will sell more minis and books for WotC while sacrificing some of the fans in the process.