Scott, get a clue, and do the math before you post next time. SC are broken, math says so. Arguing with math makes it really hard to take any of your opinions seriously.
---> Points to prime example of what he was just posting about
|
Deep breath people, remember we one big happy disfunctional family here.
The "stats" of a game only work as a formula when the DM is ruled by the rules. Skills, combat and anything involving a dice roll is there primarily for the PC's, and as guidelines for the DM. As DM if I want the encounter to go this way or that because it tells my story I don't give a rats-behind what pluses the PC's have. Somewhere along the way having too many detailed rules for this and that has lead to D&D becoming seen as more and more "PC's vs DM" (and rules supporting this being an equal footing). I direct the blame intially at 3e with its ECL stuff, great I guess for new DM's but somehow became "canon" on how to create an encounter that was balanced (whatever that means).
Saying that the length of time that combats take in 3.5e/4e make them less my type of D&D and why for "serious" gaming I still use AD&D and for fun I DM PFrpg (seeing the power-gaming combo feats of death come together from my players, just magic) and play in a 4e game (I use to wargame so it appeals).
S.
Deep breath people, remember we one big happy dysfunctional family here.
S.
Exactly. And just because I loved Stefan more when he was hunting droids in the desert doesn't mean I don't still love him now.
My main problem with 4e comes from the way it teaches a new generation of RPgamers our loved hobby. It is true that experienced players can grab mostly any set of rules (3.5, 4e, or even Chess) and construct a role-playing experience.
I started playing RPGs with AD&D some 16 years ago. The amount of fluff, tips on roleplaying, and literary references that came with the core books really aided me and everyone playing at the time to understand what RPGs were all about.
I keep hearing these sorts of comments from people who don't like 4e. I have to think that I read a very different set of books than they did, because I see plenty of roleplaying possibilities in 4e.
First of all, I am sorry if my comment did not resonate well with you. I did try to word it in a polite and clear manner to avoid it, but alas.
Roleplaying possibilities exist in any game people decide to play. Roleplaying games are, or should be, of course, specially built for it. As I stated before, in my personal experience D&D is not, in any of its iterations, the RP game system which more easily creates the ambience for it, due to its dissociated mechanics. I think, for motives previously exposed, that 4e worsens this. However, one can always inject it if one knows what it is doing
Flavor and role-playing depend on the players and the DM - anybody who started playing very young knows that, because when we were young, very young, we probably didn't understand the rules well enough to play correctly. But we still had fun, because when you're a kid roleplaying comes naturally. And you know what was exciting? The bits where you got to fireball the troll. And it's still exciting in 4e.
My first games with AD&D hardly resembled the correct rules. First of all, I was too young. Secondly, english is not my native language, and the details of that complicated system eluded me :). However, the sheer amount of flavor that came with the material showed me clearly what that game was all about and had my creative juices running for a long time. Not all people are born with a creative mind so powerful that can create lots of interesting things out of nowhere. The quantity and quality of fluff I had access to in AD&D during my "role-playing formative years" helped my gaming today. Today it is quite easy for me to use 4e and create a campaign or game my players will enjoy, given my background. I am not sure I could do it back then.
I'm sorry, I'm just fed up. I'm really sick of being told that if I enjoy 4e I don't know what role playing is. I'm really sick of being told that if I was a good DM, I wouldn't have to prep so long for my 3.5 games. That clearly 3.5 is better and that I owe it to Paizo to support their game of WotC.
This edition war is destroying both games. And it shouldn't. I like both games. I hope, I really do, that somehow Paizo manages to fix 3.5 for DMs, because I like the game - I just hate that DMing for it became work rather than fun, especially at high levels. I hope that WotC manages to figure out that failing to actually let new blood into their adventure writing pool is causing most of their adventures for 4e to stink. Because I want to be able to play and DM in 3.P and I want to be able to play good prepublished adventures in 4e.
And mostly, I want not to feel every time I go to one discussion board or the other that I am the enemy. Even when I don't post, when I read the boards... these wonderful boards that were once the best gaming community out there... I cringe. I'm always the enemy now, no matter where I go, just because I like to enjoy my game. Gamers shouldn't do that to other people. We should know better.
- Ashavan
I am sorry again for causing you distress. I do know people are pretty inflamed when it comes to criticism to an edition or the other. However, I would like to point out I did not say any of those things you mention, though I guess from your response that you have had plenty of those coming from others. I was just mentioning a difficulty I think newer players might have with the recent iteration of the game, since some of those elements that were instrumental to me seem to be missing.
You have plenty of experience with RP as it seems and playing 4e is as good as playing any other system if you and your players are experienced.
|
|
What that even means boggles the mind. It plays like D&D.
That drastically changes if you're used to gaming (at least part time) in the RPGA.
There is no grinding. There is no Looking For Group channel. You do not need to form raids. Quest givers do not have floating exclamation points above their heads.
Actually... I know several players that level or gold (item) grind. Our Y! group has spawned a second group for low levels to find a party for the next instance of a certain mod. And yes, I've been known to have an exclaimation point over my head... mostly as a joke.
You do not press buttons to attack.
True, now we have cards to flip over.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I'm somewhat reminded of Mechwarrior, the RPG companion for BattleTech. I ran a game for a while, and like any RPG you could roleplay with it to a certain extent, but it kinda always felt like you were just filling time until you got back into your giant robot killing machine and started making Piloting and Gunnery rolls.Which version?
1st and 2nd yes, that was a problem. 3rd? Characters could have *very* broad knowleges, but character creation took 6 months (or at least it felt like it)
The original MW from like 1988. Still have it around here someplace.
Thiago -- you look new to me. Welcome to the boards.
What I've noticed is that almost all of the bookstores in my area (central and north New Jersey) have just almost completely gotten rid of their RPG sections with the end of 3rd Edition. Every book store I've been in has maybe the 4.0 PHB and a smattering of leftover 3E books with the rest of the shelf-space going to manga and board games. The impression I get is that they are giving up on RPGs and using the shelf space for something else.
Please forgive the following off-topic post:
Aaron:
Continue discussing....
Thiago -- you look new to me. Welcome to the boards.
Heh, I am kinda new, though I lurked for quite some time. Thank you for the welcome :)
Thiago -- you look new to me. Welcome to the boards.Heh, I am kinda new, though I lurked for quite some time. Thank you for the welcome :)
A baptism by fire. Welcome to the front. ;-)
A baptism by fire. Welcome to the front. ;-)Thiago -- you look new to me. Welcome to the boards.Heh, I am kinda new, though I lurked for quite some time. Thank you for the welcome :)
I am honored to serve :P
I am sorry again for causing you distress. I do know people are pretty inflamed when it comes to criticism to an edition or the other. However, I would like to point out I did not say any of those things you mention, though I guess from your response that you have had plenty of those coming from others. I was just mentioning a difficulty I think newer players might have with the recent iteration of the game, since some of those elements that were instrumental to me seem to be missing.You have plenty of experience with RP as it seems and playing 4e is as good as playing any other system if you and your players are experienced.
I'm sorry if that post felt directed solely at you. As you might imagine, I see these sorts of posts often. You ended up at the receiving end of several months of pent up frustration. For that I apologize.
As for needing to be an experienced group to roleplay, again, I have to say, we must have read two very different versions of the DMG... the 4e guide went into far more depth on how to run a game, especially from the perspective of a new DM, than I recall any previous edition doing.
Oh, and I expect Lilith should be along with cookies for you shortly... I'd offer some, but I don't bake.
- Ashavan
|
However, it's quite possible the Rebels don't need a majority to win in the long run.What a horrorifying statement - win what? The "I'm the coolest RPG comp."? What do the rebels win? Some people don't like 4e so burn down the company that makes it?
Why can't we have both? Does there have to be a winner?
Oddly enough, Rockheimr went on to explaine what the statment meant, guess you missed his next paragraph.
From Paizo's point of view I would imagine they just want to sell as many books as possible, outselling 4e is probably not even in their gameplan let alone hopes or dreams. They don't need to outsell 4e to be a success, they seem to be a relatively small company, they don't need WOTCs profits or anything like them. I'm 90% sure Paizo will be around for a long time.
He did not wish ill upon WotC, merely kept his illustration in the 'Rebel' theme already established.
|
|
What that even means boggles the mind. It plays like D&D.
There is no grinding. There is no Looking For Group channel. You do not need to form raids. Quest givers do not have floating exclamation points above their heads. You do not press buttons to attack. I can think of very few real similarities between MMORPGs and D&D (most of which are based on genre rather than how the game works), and those few similarities are shared by all editions of the game; they are not unique to 4th Edition.
Why do so many otherwise intelligent people resort to being obtuse when someone comments on the mechanical similarities to an MMO? These obviously are not the things that were being referred to. The game does resemble an MMO in ways, the design and balance of the 'at will/per encounter/per day' powers is practically a direct lift of the way most MMOs work. If that doesn't bother you, then guess what? That's Awesome for you. Really, I (and pretty much all Grognards I know) bear no ill will towards anyone who likes the direction 4e went. I don't even begrudge those who like the card-centric design (My personal biggest peeve about the game). But really if you like the game, embrace it for what it so obviously is.
Slightly off-topic rant:
|
Nope what got under my skin was the 'Salted Earth' way they tried to handle 3.5 and the OGL
You know, I think this is what rubbed me the wrong way most as well.
The OGL, to me, was the most representative modern implementation of recognizing the true grassroots of the RPG hobby.
It was there so that creative people could be as creative as they wanted to be without having to be mechanical, or mathmatical geniuses like the old days when Palladium, GURPS, d6 and others were rising into prominence.
By pulling it the way they did, WotC effectively told the industry that it didn't care for that grassroots heritage, or the creative freedome it gave people.
At least, that's my two cents.
|
|
However, it's quite possible the Rebels don't need a majority to win in the long run.What a horrorifying statement - win what? The "I'm the coolest RPG comp."? What do the rebels win? Some people don't like 4e so burn down the company that makes it?
Why can't we have both? Does there have to be a winner?
Oddly enough, Rockheimr went on to explaine what the statment meant, guess you missed his next paragraph.
From Paizo's point of view I would imagine they just want to sell as many books as possible, outselling 4e is probably not even in their gameplan let alone hopes or dreams. They don't need to outsell 4e to be a success, they seem to be a relatively small company, they don't need WOTCs profits or anything like them. I'm 90% sure Paizo will be around for a long time.He did not wish ill upon WotC, merely kept his illustration in the 'Rebel' theme already established.
This was a statement of the obvious, smaller company has smaller expenses meaning smaller sales can still equate to a healthy profit. So he has started saying that Paizo doesn't have to have a majority to "win" then says (in the paragraph you pointed out) that this winning means that Paizo continues to exist. As I haven't seen WotC actively trying to derail Paizo in their new enterprise (PFrpg) the only thing stopping Paizo is if they make a bad product - which I doubt given what we have seen so far. My point was that the choice of language was a little emotive, that's all.
If being a "Rebel" makes some feel heroic and makes them think they are defending the faith of D&D all well and good. I just think we now have choice and that this continuing debate about X vs Y is about as smart and useful as licking car battery terminals. I'm unsure what some of the posts are meant to achieve, none have made me stop and go "Wow, you are completely right, how stupid am I? [Insert either 3.5e or 4e here] is a big steaming pile of poo. Right. After ten hours of self flagation I'll burn the offending books and sell my soul to [insert Paizo or WotC here]". Both games have issues, both games have errata and both game are good in there own right.
Self confessed RPG whore,
S.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
Completely agree, I have no issue with the new game (4e). But I am sore about the pdf thing. Could have still been a little money spinner for them. Not like it costs them anything to sell a pdf. All they have achieved is increasing P2P traffic of 3e stuff and forcing those usually not willing to partake in illegal downloads to perhaps consider doing so.
S.
I'm sorry if that post felt directed solely at you. As you might imagine, I see these sorts of posts often. You ended up at the receiving end of several months of pent up frustration. For that I apologize.
As for needing to be an experienced group to roleplay, again, I have to say, we must have read two very different versions of the DMG... the 4e guide went into far more depth on how to run a game, especially from the perspective of a new DM, than I recall any previous edition doing.
Hey, no harm done!
As for the DMG:
I don't think we read two versions of the DMG. In fact, I agree with you that the 4e DMG is a great source of DM tips. It explains how to deal with different player types and styles, some hints on game pacing and, most important, on how to use the 4e rules effectively in many situations. In fact, from the three 4e core books, I think the DM is the best one.
As I mentioned in my original posts one of the problems I have has to do with an increase of dissociated mechanics. However, I think this was extensively debated and fought over in many places and I don't want to start this discussion here. I think the point is presented in a very convincing way here.
I think that the greatest loss came from the way monsters are now treated, a process that started in 3e, but got to a whole new level in 4e. I guess I miss the old Monstrous Compendium monster entries, dripping with flavor. The presence of many out-of-combat abilities which, although useless during combat, suggested the way that kind of monster acted, how it planned and plotted, etc. Of course I, as a DM, can make this up. But everyone runs out of good ideas and needs some help. That is why I love Paizo's products. They are not afraid to dump the crunch sometimes and concentrate on top-notch fluff.
Oh, and I expect Lilith should be along with cookies for you shortly... I'd offer some, but I don't bake.
- Ashavan
Hmm...cookies. I should provide some juice or hot chocolate to go with those.
|
|
As I mentioned in my original posts one of the problems I have has to do with an increase of dissociated mechanics.
I think these mechanics are why 4e is touted as being closer to the original D&D then 3e. Any idea of the strength of a dragon in 1e AD&D because I sure don't? Monsters were not players and not treated as such in 1e and now in 4e, 3e gave us a unified system that explained everything from the "mechanic DNA" up.
S.
As I mentioned in my original posts one of the problems I have has to do with an increase of dissociated mechanics.I think these mechanics are why 4e is touted as being closer to the original D&D then 3e. Any idea of the strength of a dragon in 1e AD&D because I sure don't? Monsters were not players and not treated as such in 1e and now in 4e, 3e gave us a unified system that explained everything from the "mechanic DNA" up.
S.
Agreed, however part of the reason this happened was because that was what was being asked for. People wanted to have the means to play the monsters as well as the regular races. DM's want a means to allow this and keep things balanced. Savage species was a 2nd edition book before it was a 3rd edition book as were all the "complete book of 'x'". These were not new concepts to D&D when they came out for 3.x and it would be dishonest and a disservice to say otherwise.
3.x just tried to explain it more than the other editions did. The math behind 3.x was laid plain for all to see and to be able to use/ build around.
Which is part of the reason I liked it. Now nothing is perfect however 3.x was not a bad rendition of D&D either.
Heck I can still remember the last "edition war" when 3.0 and 3.5 came out in the first place.
|
|
These were not new concepts to D&D when they came out for 3.x and it would be dishonest and a disservice to say otherwise.
Heck I can still remember the last "edition war" when 3.0 and 3.5 came out in the first place.
True, but they were as you said shoe horned onto 2e. I will add that we turned a blind eye to anything other than the PHB/DMG/MM (folder crap, stupid, stupid idea) for 2e so missed on all the splat book "fun". By the end of 2e's life it was a mess if you added in all the splat books, 3e was a breath of fresh air - then the cycle of pain began again and 60 suppliment books per minute were published to break what was a great game (and even better with 3.5, and even better again with PFrpg). Paizo has reset the clock on 3.5e and allowed us to tidy our closets and stop and think "what does suppliment X or Y really add to the game?". Without this event I think 3.5e would have also died a natural death under the weigh of it's own game breaking suppliments. For my little gaming group it means PFrpg and the PF monster suppliment are in and ALL other 3.5e stuff is out.
3/3.5e at the time was the only game in town, we can thank Paizo for giving us a choice this edition change. However we do need to also thank WotC for the OGL which allows Paizo to do what it has done (even if this was an unforeseen outcome of the OGL).
S.
Well again I don't think the splat books were in and of themselves the problem.
Several of them really had a lot of good ideas and things going for them. Many setting books (frostburn, Sandstorm, Cityscape) presented information that should have been in the DMG or PHB but was left out. The complete books filled in the gaps that were left in the "core" due to lack of space, while the psionic, and other "alternate" books were at minimum interesting and useful if campaign dependent.
The problem developed when WotC didn't cross check their books or think through game balance issues before publishing. They did present some new ideas in 3.x (feats not so much -- 2nd edition called them traits) like prestige classes and "open" multi-classing. If they had continued to use previous material for each of the later books (like giving continued life to the hexblade or the Combat Form feats, more stuff for the Knight) instead of simply publishing more "new" material they could have probably cut the clutter some. Instead they allowed each new book to simply be a stand alone product, so great ideas in earlier books and material simply was not supported for the life of the system.
That was the big problems: Lack of forethought and cross checking ideas, and lack of continued use for old material.
|
|
Well again I don't think the splat books were in and of themselves the problem.
The problem developed when WotC didn't cross check their books or think through game balance issues before publishing.
Very true, but that was due to the number being produced, rather than quality it seemed quantity was the goal in 2e and continued in 3e. I am going to assume that WotC has learned a little from this and perhaps the multiple PHBs/DMGs for 4e are hopefully not just pulp money generators (i.e. 4er's will buy any old crap like the 2e and 3er's before them) but rather make valuable additions to the 4e game - as you pointed out some were for 2e/3e.
I don't blame TSR/WotC for not having cross checked everything as they bloated (cf: Rolemaster) the number of classes and options exponentially. An impossible situation if you have a publishing deadline to adhere too.
I hope Paizo stick to the idea of "core" books and then move on to concentrate on writing the excellent adventures we have come to expect from them. Their PFrpg has one of everything (basher/healer/sneaky) and then options to make I believe any character concept you can think of under the sword and sorcery banner.
WotC have obvious gone the other way and decided to make everything "core", and we can only hope that this means the cross checking you refer too is religously pursued.
S.
|
|
I am going to assume that WotC has learned a little from this and perhaps the multiple PHBs/DMGs for 4e are hopefully not just pulp money generators (i.e. 4er's will buy any old crap like the 2e and 3er's before them) but rather make valuable additions to the 4e game - as you pointed out some were for 2e/3e.
I dunno, for the last couple editions 1 Book on Dragons was good enough ... but somehow, 4E demands that there is enough material to fill at least 2, perhaps even more versions of the Draconomicon?
I can't believe that the shift to 4E suddenly doubles, much less possibly trippled the amount of "useful" information on Dragons.
Just my 2 cents, but it feels to me like 4E has more pulp generators than before.
|
|
I am going to assume that WotC has learned a little from this and perhaps the multiple PHBs/DMGs for 4e are hopefully not just pulp money generators (i.e. 4er's will buy any old crap like the 2e and 3er's before them) but rather make valuable additions to the 4e game - as you pointed out some were for 2e/3e.
I dunno, for the last couple editions 1 Book on Dragons was good enough ... but somehow, 4E demands that there is enough material to fill at least 2, perhaps even more versions of the Draconomicon?
I can't believe that the shift to 4E suddenly doubles, much less possibly trippled the amount of "useful" information on Dragons.
Just my 2 cents, but it feels to me like 4E has more pulp generators than before.
You reflect my concerns also. Corporate masters are not known to understand much other then bottom line profit. I'm sure the 4e designers are well meaning and we can only hope that they don't get interference from above to "produce, produce, produce".
S.
Scott, get a clue, and do the math before you post next time. SC are broken, math says so. Arguing with math makes it really hard to take any of your opinions seriously.
Mind your tongue.
I clearly explained that a by-the-book skill challenge will usually result in a very easy or very difficult skill challenge (depending on use of errata). However, the whole point of a skill challenge is to make them interesting, by adding secondary effects, confounding variables, etc., of the sort outlined in the DMG, Insider articles, and used in published adventures. Those skill challenges work just fine. And I daresay I have both written and run more skill challenges than you have.
That drastically changes if you're used to gaming (at least part time) in the RPGA.
And was the case in 3.5 as well. I played plenty of LG modules. The playstyle has not changed.
Actually... I know several players that level or gold (item) grind. Our Y! group has spawned a second group for low levels to find a party for the next instance of a certain mod. And yes, I've been known to have an exclaimation point over my head... mostly as a joke.
This entire style of play is one that is not advised by the rules, and is certainly not the intended target. While you can certainly play like this, the game's rules have nothing to do with it (and, again, it could just as easily have taken place in previous editions).
True, now we have cards to flip over.
Kind of like the old spell cards they had in 2nd Edition.
Why do so many otherwise intelligent people resort to being obtuse when someone comments on the mechanical similarities to an MMO?
Tone back comments like that, please. They are unnecessary.
These obviously are not the things that were being referred to.
That was the point. The crowd that says "4th Edition is WoW on paper!" does not actually list the aspects of the game they are referring to.
The game does resemble an MMO in ways, the design and balance of the 'at will/per encounter/per day' powers is practically a direct lift of the way most MMOs work.
No, it's not. Most MMOs operate off a decrease/increase resource system; WoW, for instance, has abilities that draw on Rage (a resource that naturally increases during combat), Energy (a resource that naturally increases during combat), and Mana (a resource that naturally decreases during combat). Most abilities are tied to these resources, and some have a cooldown.
There is no "per encouter" mechanic. There is no "per day" mechanic. The idea that 4th Edition somehow stole these from the field of MMOs, or that it is somehow "MMO-style" is unsupportable.
If that doesn't bother you, then guess what? That's Awesome for you. Really, I (and pretty much all Grognards I know) bear no ill will towards anyone who likes the direction 4e went. I don't even begrudge those who like the card-centric design (My personal biggest peeve about the game). But really if you like the game, embrace it for what it so obviously is.
What you are so convinced it obviously is, others find difficult to believe. If you want to make the case for 4th Edition's intense similarities to MMO gameplay, do so.
Tone back comments like that, please. They are unnecessary.
Mom?
Scott, get a clue, and do the math before you post next time. SC are broken, math says so. Arguing with math makes it really hard to take any of your opinions seriously.Mind your tongue.
I clearly explained that a by-the-book skill challenge will usually result in a very easy or very difficult skill challenge (depending on use of errata). However, the whole point of a skill challenge is to make them interesting, by adding secondary effects, confounding variables, etc., of the sort outlined in the DMG, Insider articles, and used in published adventures. Those skill challenges work just fine. And I daresay I have both written and run more skill challenges than you have.
Scott, I hope you realize that you are not using the skill challenge as intended. As intended it is useless, you are house ruling it to make it work as in provide something interesting. You're taking a car without engine, get a horse to draw it, and then claim it's working fine.
The math of SCs is broken. Written as they are they cannot work as intended. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty would admit that.
No, it's not. Most MMOs operate off a decrease/increase resource system; WoW, for instance, has abilities that draw on Rage (a resource that naturally increases during combat), Energy (a resource that naturally increases during combat), and Mana (a resource that naturally decreases during combat). Most abilities are tied to these resources, and some have a cooldown.There is no "per encouter" mechanic. There is no "per day" mechanic. The idea that 4th Edition somehow stole these from the field of MMOs, or that it is somehow "MMO-style" is unsupportable.
"Per encounter" and "per day" meachanics are cooldown periods. 1st-3.5 each had similar mechanics unarguably, but it is much more prevalent in 4th. This is not an attack on 4th. I buy 4th, I like 4th. And yes, saying that 4th ed is influenced by MMO's (among other things) is fully supportable. Heck, Bill Slaviscek said it himself . There's nothing wrong with pointing out that 4th was influenced by MMOs anymore then there's something wrong by pointing out that Gygax was influenced by Tolken, or that White Wolf was influenced by Rice.
"Per encounter" and "per day" meachanics are cooldown periods. 1st-3.5 each had similar mechanics unarguably, but it is much more prevalent in 4th. This is not an attack on 4th. I buy 4th, I like 4th. And yes, saying that 4th ed is influenced by MMO's (among other things) is fully supportable. Heck, Bill Slaviscek said it himself . There's nothing wrong with pointing out that 4th was influenced by MMOs anymore then there's something wrong by pointing out that Gygax was influenced by Tolken, or that White Wolf was influenced by Rice.
Scott apparently knows best about 4E, not even math or the 4E designers themselves are allowed to contradict him.
Scott, I hope you realize that you are not using the skill challenge as intended. As intended it is useless, you are house ruling it to make it work as in provide something interesting. You're taking a car without engine, get a horse to draw it, and then claim it's working fine.The math of SCs is broken. Written as they are they cannot work as intended. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty would admit that.
For the love of Cthulhu.
A house-rule is a made up rule at the table to make something useable and Scott is telling you that he uses the rules presented by the DMG, Insider articles, and published adventures without changing the rules for them. He isn't using a house-rule, he is using the established rules and following the guidelines on using said rules.
You have obviously read a different DMG. If you make use of the extra rules in the DMG beyond the skeleton of the skill challenge namely the following: "Step 4: Other Conditions" "Group Skill Checks" "Reward Clever Ideas". Your group could come up with a few successes without a single dice being rolled if they are very clever and you make the Skill Challenge interesting.
The problem with the "Hard Math" argument of the SC system being broken is the unknown variable that is the players. It doesn't take into consideration the group by group creativity to overcome a skill challenge and what bonuses or successes they can gain from that creativity.
I know enough people complained about it until it got errata but a significant number of people were probably using it without/before the errata including published adventures. I don't need to use the errata on it and apparently neither does Scott but you are telling us that we house-ruled it to make it work yet we didn't change a single rule to the Skill Challenges?
However, it's quite possible the Rebels don't need a majority to win in the long run.What a horrorifying statement - win what? The "I'm the coolest RPG comp."? What do the rebels win? Some people don't like 4e so burn down the company that makes it?
Why can't we have both? Does there have to be a winner?
Oddly enough, Rockheimr went on to explaine what the statment meant, guess you missed his next paragraph.
From Paizo's point of view I would imagine they just want to sell as many books as possible, outselling 4e is probably not even in their gameplan let alone hopes or dreams. They don't need to outsell 4e to be a success, they seem to be a relatively small company, they don't need WOTCs profits or anything like them. I'm 90% sure Paizo will be around for a long time.He did not wish ill upon WotC, merely kept his illustration in the 'Rebel' theme already established.
This was a statement of the obvious, smaller company has smaller expenses meaning smaller sales can still equate to a healthy profit. So he has started saying that Paizo doesn't have to have a majority to "win" then says (in the paragraph you pointed out) that this winning means that Paizo continues to exist. As I haven't seen WotC actively trying to derail Paizo in their new enterprise (PFrpg) the only thing stopping Paizo is if they make a bad product - which I doubt given what we have seen so far. My point was that the choice of language was a little emotive, that's all.
If being a "Rebel" makes some feel heroic and makes them think they are defending the faith of D&D all well and good. I just think we now have choice and that this continuing debate about X vs Y is about as smart and useful as licking car battery terminals. I'm unsure what some of the posts are meant to achieve, none have made me stop and go "Wow, you are completely right, how stupid am I? [Insert either 3.5e or 4e here] is...
If you think continued debate on this subject is not a good thing ... you could refrain from joining in the ongoing debate. Not being rude there, I don't mind you taking part, I'm just pointing out you're not being logical and come off as trying to hold some kind of shakey moral high ground whilst being an active participant in the activity you're claiming to dislike and wish others wouldn't do.
Re your first point in that post btw, sometimes stating the obvious is sadly necessary. ;-) I've personally seen supporters of 4e trying to claim Pathfinder/Paizo will crash and burn, and basing this on an apparent belief Paizo needs to do as well as wotc to be a success when clearly that ain't so. Also it's clear that Paizo doing well may well have a big impact on 4e sales, that's really all I was saying. The Rebel Alliance stuff is just a bit of fun.
"Per encounter" and "per day" meachanics are cooldown periods. 1st-3.5 each had similar mechanics unarguably, but it is much more prevalent in 4th. This is not an attack on 4th. I buy 4th, I like 4th. And yes, saying that 4th ed is influenced by MMO's (among other things) is fully supportable. Heck, Bill Slaviscek said it himself . There's nothing wrong with pointing out that 4th was influenced by MMOs anymore then there's something wrong by pointing out that Gygax was influenced by Tolken, or that White Wolf was influenced by Rice.
At-Will Spell-like Abilities and Spell-like Abilities Per Day were used in 3.x as well as I seem to remember them being used in 2E. They have become more prevalent in 4E because they are more common. I will also add that in the article linked Mr. Slaviscek is not quoted saying a thing about MMOs but the writer is saying it. Most of the MMO connections are in reference to the Digital Initiative and not the actual 4E ruleset.
For the love of Cthulhu.
A house-rule is a made up rule at the table to make something useable and Scott is telling you that he uses the rules presented by the DMG, Insider articles, and published adventures without changing the rules for them. He isn't using a house-rule, he is using the established rules and following the guidelines on using said rules.
You have obviously read a different DMG. If you make use of the extra rules in the DMG beyond the skeleton of the skill challenge namely the following: "Step 4: Other Conditions" "Group Skill Checks" "Reward Clever Ideas". Your group could come up with a few successes without a single dice being rolled if they are very clever and you make the Skill Challenge interesting.
The problem with the "Hard Math" argument of the SC system being broken is the unknown variable that is the players. It doesn't take into consideration the group by group creativity to overcome a skill challenge and what bonuses or successes they can gain from that creativity.
I know enough people complained about it until it got errata but a significant number of people were probably using it without/before the errata including published adventures. I don't need to use the errata on it and apparently neither does Scott but you are telling us that we house-ruled it to make it work yet we didn't change a single rule to the Skill Challenges?
If you don't use the SC math what are you using from teh SC then? Some clumsy railroady system that would better be replaced by a more flexible approach formed and shaped by players, not pressed into a framework of - stupid and arbitrally - successes and failures.
|
|
If you think continued debate on this subject is not a good thing ... you could refrain from joining in the ongoing debate.
True, but in this case I felt rather blind sided by your estwile defender. To take the high ground would imply I feel some sort of superiority and the truth couldn't be further.
Re your first point in that post btw, sometimes stating the obvious is sadly necessary. ;-)The Rebel Alliance stuff is just a bit of fun.
I agree but not sadly, I can write some things that seem clear to me but are mud to others (actaully nearly every post).
Apologies for taking the wrong end of the stick with the Rebel comments, just it conjurers images of Paizo being "good" and WotC being well "evil". They are both companies trying to make some cash.
Taking the moral high ground of a mole,
S.
Scott, I hope you realize that you are not using the skill challenge as intended. As intended it is useless, you are house ruling it to make it work as in provide something interesting. You're taking a car without engine, get a horse to draw it, and then claim it's working fine.
The math of SCs is broken. Written as they are they cannot work as intended. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty would admit that.
Scott apparently knows best about 4E, not even math or the 4E designers themselves are allowed to contradict him.
See this? This is juvenile behavior. It finds disagreement and instead of debating the merits of the argument resorts to rounds of vitriol like "anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty would admit that," and "no one is allowed to contradict Mr. High And Mighty."
This is nonsense. I'd be happy to discuss skill challenge design (which, again, Fuchs, works just fine if you invest the same amount of time constructing a skill challenge as you would putting together a comparable combat encounter), but I will not get into any kind of discussion with someone who behaves like that. I mean, it's even pretty clear that Fuchs doesn't like skill challenges period, regardless of the math; I suspect his criticisms of the math are just concrete ways for him to express disgust with the skill challenge system as a whole.
Stay classy, Paizo fans.
If you think continued debate on this subject is not a good thing ... you could refrain from joining in the ongoing debate.True, but in this case I felt rather blind sided by your estwile defender. To take the high ground would imply I feel some sort of superiority and the truth couldn't be further.
Re your first point in that post btw, sometimes stating the obvious is sadly necessary. ;-)The Rebel Alliance stuff is just a bit of fun.
I agree but not sadly, I can write some things that seem clear to me but are mud to others (actaully nearly every post).
Apologies for taking the wrong end of the stick with the Rebel comments, just it conjurers images of Paizo being "good" and WotC being well "evil". They are both companies trying to make some cash.
Taking the moral high ground of a mole,
S.
Well as others have said wotc does seem to be terrible at public relations with it's customer base, while Paizo is clearly much better. How often do we see posts from disgruntled former wotc customers stating they will never buy anything more from wotc due to perceived bad treatment by wotc?
It's easy to see why a lot of people have generally more goodwill towards Paizo than they do toward wotc. Even people who play 4e.
If wotc wants to stop being perceived as the bad guys they need to start mending bridges imo.
"Per encounter" and "per day" meachanics are cooldown periods. 1st-3.5 each had similar mechanics unarguably, but it is much more prevalent in 4th. This is not an attack on 4th. I buy 4th, I like 4th. And yes, saying that 4th ed is influenced by MMO's (among other things) is fully supportable. Heck, Bill Slaviscek said it himself . There's nothing wrong with pointing out that 4th was influenced by MMOs anymore then there's something wrong by pointing out that Gygax was influenced by Tolken, or that White Wolf was influenced by Rice.
You're absolutely right. The game is, unquestionably, influenced by MMOs. It is also unquestionably influenced by dozens of other sources. Influence, even significant influence, doesn't mean that the game plays like the game it's influenced by. When Bill said 4th Edition was influenced by WoW, he certainly didn't mean it played like WoW on paper, and that's what we're discussing.
Opinions are like b***-holes. Everyone has one and they usually stink. No one cares to see yours.
Ah. An insult. I know those.
I love you, too, man.
|
|
You're absolutely right. The game is, unquestionably, influenced by MMOs. It is also unquestionably influenced by dozens of other sources. Influence, even significant influence, doesn't mean that the game plays like the game it's influenced by. When Bill said 4th Edition was influenced by WoW, he certainly didn't mean it played like WoW on paper, and that's what we're discussing.
Yes but a game that is influenced by something else will probably have specific parts that do play like the game it was influenced by otherwise it couldn't have been Influenced by it.
Scott, you are the best argument for an ignore function on those boards. Your hypocritical and arrogant crusading for 4E and your inability to accept any critic of it - no matter how true - should be labelled as the trolling it is.
Yes but a game that is influenced by something else will probably have specific parts that do play like the game it was influenced by otherwise it couldn't have been Influenced by it.
Would you mind giving some specific examples?
Scott, you are the best argument for an ignore function on those boards. Your hypocritical and arrogant crusading for 4E and your inability to accept any critic of it - no matter how true - should be labelled as the trolling it is.
You do realize that you have yet to give any concrete examples or evidence to support your claims?