And for Prof C - my proof is an acquaintence who attended a WotC seminar on he development of 4e who was specifically told that 3.5 customers were not the desired audience.
I don't think I have ever heard this, and I am very skeptical that this was actually said by anyone working for WotC, especially in as official a capacity as speaker at a seminar.
It may have been that they said that 3.5 players were not their sole target audience, but that is a very different thing from what you are saying, here.
And for Prof C - my proof is an acquaintence who attended a WotC seminar on he development of 4e who was specifically told that 3.5 customers were not the desired audience.
I don't think I have ever heard this, and I am very skeptical that this was actually said by anyone working for WotC, especially in as official a capacity as speaker at a seminar.
It may have been that they said that 3.5 players were not their sole target audience, but that is a very different thing from what you are saying, here.
I would not be skeptical that someone from WotC officially said this, however, I'd be skeptical that this is what they meant. IF someone said this, it was most certainly couched in context that meant "we have the old crowd, let's get new blood". The presumption of a famous unique-name-brand company that continued to gain more influence from fans was that they had their current customer base. Honestly, WotC didn't need to try to sell old-guard on D&D - if they wanted roleplaying, they'd probably find it there far easier because not everyone has access to hobby shops, and those that have to rely on bookstores are more likely to be able to find "big-name" producers, like WotC, than smaller ones (such as most 3PP were at the time).
They probably (semi-justifiably, from their point of view, at the time) thought they were effectively "invincible". Certainly their customer service after the release of 4E any time I interacted with them was... weak, at best, indicating they weren't interested in trying too hard to keep a customer base they thought they'd keep more-or-less forever by sheer power of the brand.
They most certainly weren't attempting to drive their customer base away. That would be stupid. Instead, they'd be more interested in getting new lifelong customers, and that's where their focus would go.
I've seen similar phrases ripe for misunderstanding bandied about before by business people and motivational speakers, and they often result in misunderstandings by both those who hear it from the outside, and even close "partners" (i.e. employees of the company). The fact that they appeared uninterested by their actions (again, from a personal, anecdotal experience I've had) in their current customer base (the 3.5 fans) just kind of suggests that somewhere, sometime along the way this phrase (or something similar) was iterated and filtered down without the context amongst at least some of the workers there (specifically the customer-service people).
All that said, I'm not claiming her statement or quote as truth. I'm just saying I'm not entirely dubious of such a claim that a company could hire someone to (or even have a higher-up) give a speech that happened to include those words and cause misunderstanding when they're supposed to motivate (which they also do, just not in the perfectly preferred direction).
Besides, where the person heard it is just as important. Certainly aids are more likely to make guffaws like this than professional speakers (who do make guffaws like this) and many "informative" conversations can and do take place between and with "lower downs" (or middle-tier) who either just get it wrong or receive the wrong view (or receive the right view with the wrong emphasis) and thus it could be perpetuated in that manner. Too many variables (at current) to decide on the validity of such a statement.
I also like how Paizo is updating little niggling rules like Stealth and fine-tuning them along with the quick release of errata (though they're moving kind of slow on some major errors in UC). Now if Paizo does for Grappling what it is doing for stealth right now, I'll be ecstatic. Refine grappling, fine tune it, and have all the rules in one single cohesive document covering everything from monster grappling to spellcasting while grappled for reference. That would be awesome.What the heck is wrong with the grapple rules as they are now? Combat maneuver system is awesome, easy to use and really streamlined. You roll a single die. Wham.
I like the CMB/CMD system.
I don't like the fact that the lose dex bonus to AC is in a subscript on a different table elsehwere in the book.
I don't like that the rules in the grapple section, in the magic section, and the grappled condition all read differently. To fully adjudicate grapples, I had to read the grapple section which told me one thing. Read the grappled condition which told me another. Then read the subscript on a small table elsewhere in the book to know that they lose their dex bonus to AC.
I would also like to know how grapple works with say Silent Spell. If I Silent Spell a dimension door, thus needing no verbal, somatic, or material components, can I dimension door out of a grapple? It seems stupid that a spell like dimension door, which requuires the recitation of one word (not an incantation), would require an insane concentration check to allow me to escape. As though wizards are so dumb as to not create spells easily cast to escape a grapple.
Having to make a concentration check to cast a spell while grappled equal to the CMB of a creature is ludicrous. I would like them to spend a little more time thinking about how this works and check their numbers. Did they really intend for a grappled arcane caster to have almost zero chance to escape from a grapple even with a Silent Spelled dimension door or a one word dimension door?
I would like a nice, cohesive set of grapple rules all on a few neat pages that tell me everything I need to know and make sense with spellcasting. I can understand not being able use spells with somatic components while grappled.
But James Jacobs has said that the new grapple condition is the equivalent of grabbing one limb and holding on, so why can't you use verbal components while grappled? Especially a spell like dimension door useable for quick getaway.
I can understand perhaps having the wind crushed out of you with a constrict attack or a making a concentration check versus damage dealt for a grapple attack, but not against CMB.
More thought into the grapple rules while spellcasting would be great. And a more cohesive write up.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Wotc with Monte helps actually does do that and they pull it off well hard to see what Paizo could do to counter such a modular edition. Backwards compitability is no longer such a strong selling point if you can get the 3.5 books again even if in digitla format I will predict Wotc will be stronger for it. As for digital no ways around it. On that either you adapt or die. It's not going to go away no matter how much you hide your hands in the sand or click your ruby red shoes toghter and go "I wish, I wish".
I really don't see the whole "modular edition" thing happening. There's just far too much difference between the mechanics of 3.X, 4E, and "retro" editions for it to really work short of shoving three systems into one book (and the "retro" portion would have a good half-dozen variations itself). The end result would be something that would be impossible to write for.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Wotc with Monte helps actually does do that and they pull it off well hard to see what Paizo could do to counter such a modular edition. Backwards compitability is no longer such a strong selling point if you can get the 3.5 books again even if in digitla format I will predict Wotc will be stronger for it. As for digital no ways around it. On that either you adapt or die. It's not going to go away no matter how much you hide your hands in the sand or click your ruby red shoes toghter and go "I wish, I wish".
I don't play Pathfinder because it's like 3E or 3.5. I play Pathfinder because I agree the design philsophies and content offered by Paizo game designers. If they continue to do a better job taking player input and refining the game as well as putting out incredible adventures that allow people to experience the game from level 1 to level 15 plus, I'll remain with them.
More important than the ruleset for 80 to 90% of gamers is the adventure content. If Paizo had put out Pathfinder and relied on people to write their own adventure material like say a gamelike GURPS, they wouldn't be competing with WotC and 4E at all.
Adventure content is king. And Paizo is kicking some serious behind with its adventure paths and providing material for DMs to play with for many, many months.
I've seen tons of cool game systems. The biggest thing holding them from dominating is their lack of adventure content. Adventure content drives the game, not rule systems. Unless WotC can create competitive adventure content, doubtful they unseat Paizo from where they're at right now.
A ruleset is fairly useless without content to use it with. It makes gaming much harder than it should be, especially as people get older and have less and less time to devote to adventure creation and the like. The Paizo business model was very, very smart.
Focusing on adventure paths as a core revenue stream supporting a ruleset is how it should be done. How Paizo built their RPG business should be a class taught to all people entering the RPG business. This is how you build a company. Build the content that makes your game useable very strong, then build the ruleset to be used with the content.
No one remembers the ruleset when remembering their characters though they might cite the edition, they remember all the great adventures their character's went through and all they fought and did. And Paizo has made that a very memorable experience with their Adventure Paths. One of the smartest moves I've seen made from a business perspective in the RPG industry in a long, long time.
|
What the heck is wrong with the grapple rules as they are now? Combat maneuver system is awesome, easy to use and really streamlined. You roll a single die. Wham.
IMHO Pathfinder Grappling rules are just as complicated as 3.5 (which isn't so bad as I was happy with 3.5 grapple) just in different ways - but it is made worse due to the fact that:
- the rules are spread over several chapters of the core rulebook (Skills, Combat, Magic, Glossary)- it requires recalculation of CMD (as -4 Dex = -2 CMD) and possibly CMB if you use Agile Manouevres feat
- it is counter intuitive in some areas (it is actually easier to break free when you are pinned as opposed to just grappled!)
- its attempt to make the rules seem simply actually means they have left several things vague ("you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform" leaving the question open as to whether you can get iterative attacks)
- there are contradictions, e.g. p206 "The only spells you can cast
while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand" vs p568 "A pinned creature [...] cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component." So when Pinned can I cast a spell with material components if I have them in hand or not?
I prefer the 3.5 grapple rules to the PF rules.
Considering so many people complained about the 3.5 grapple rules Paizo really should have done better IMHO.
|
What the heck is wrong with the grapple rules as they are now? Combat maneuver system is awesome, easy to use and really streamlined. You roll a single die. Wham.IMHO Pathfinder Grappling rules are just as complicated as 3.5 (which isn't so bad as I was happy with 3.5 grapple) just in different ways - but it is made worse due to the fact that:
- the rules are spread over several chapters of the core rulebook (Skills, Combat, Magic, Glossary)
- it requires recalculation of CMD (as -4 Dex = -2 CMD) and possibly CMB if you use Agile Manouevres feat
- it is counter intuitive in some areas (it is actually easier to break free when you are pinned as opposed to just grappled!)
- its attempt to make the rules seem simply actually means they have left several things vague ("you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform" leaving the question open as to whether you can get iterative attacks)I prefer the 3.5 grapple rules to the PF rules.
Considering so many people complained about the 3.5 grapple rules Paizo really should have done better IMHO.
FWIW, many of the peripheral issues regarding grapple have been cleared up in the FAQ recently (eg yes, you can make full actions).
|
|
FWIW, many of the peripheral issues regarding grapple have been cleared up in the FAQ recently (eg yes, you can make full actions).
Thanks, I remember reading the articles but didn't remember that being clarified. One thing I remember the FAQ did clarify is that it if you escape from Pinned you break free completely which does mean it is often easier to break from from Pinned than just Grappled :)
|
|
Lots of good posts.
I played Pathfinder because while I like 4E I found I wanted to play 3.5 more. And it was because PF was both backwards compitable and continued 3.5 while coming out with new material for it. I like the APs yet no matter how good they are for me at least it would not have been enough of a reason to switch. And to be honest I'm also getting quite bored of them at this point. Once you get a certain amount you really imo don't need them anymore. The thing about adventures in general is that unless they are desinged from the start to be different eventually they all feel the same. In my experience it's always been the rules people remember and not the adventures because some Dms love them some for good or bad destest them and they never use them. Rules everyone from the Dm to players will use the rules all the time.
I don't think 5E will be designed to be backward-compatible with all of the previous editions. Rather, the modular system, in my opinion, will be designed to allow players of 5E to emulate the playstyles of the previous editions, though without the backward compatibility.
The one thing that will make it difficult for me to even bother transitioning to 5E is due to the official content and supported material that will be presented.
Mainly the lack of "Mature" subject matter in the Core campaign setting. I have been playing the various iterations of D&D for a bit now, starting with 2E/3.0/.5/4E then onto Pathfinder and, to be frank, Paizo has been the only company that made villains Villains, evil Evil and has approached more adult subjects with more than a snicker-and-a-wink or over the top WTFocity (BoVD, I'm lookin' at you, bub). A new ruleset/edition is great and all that but if I have to pull Golarion or Homebrew material to get the feel I want, run Pathfinder adventures to have the level of GrimN'Dark I need in my campaigns, no thanks. Somehow, I don't see WotC/Hasbro going in that direction and that's fine. It's what I have Pathfinder/Paizo for.
The one thing that will make it difficult for me to even bother transitioning to 5E is due to the official content and supported material that will be presented.
Mainly the lack of "Mature" subject matter in the Core campaign setting.
So? There isn't even really a core campaign setting in D&D anyway, and even if it were, they are still smarting over the misrepresentation of D&D in the 80s by some glory hogging sheriff.
|
|
A ruleset is fairly useless without content to use it with. It makes gaming much harder than it should be, especially as people get older and have less and less time to devote to adventure creation and the like. The Paizo business model was very, very smart.
I don't think this is an absolute though - I imagine I may be in the minority, but for me because I don't have much time I would find Paizo's Adventure Paths not a good fit as I simply don't have time to read them through, instead I am better off writing my own adventures, especially as they would then be tailored to the player characters.
And its not just in D&D I had this, my first rpg was Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and apart from the introductory scenario in the back of the book I wrote all my own adventures.
So as an objective fact, a ruleset is not useless without published adventures at all - though for some people / groups it may be.
|
I would not be skeptical that someone from WotC officially said this, however, I'd be skeptical that this is what they meant. IF someone said this, it was most certainly couched in context that meant "we have the old crowd, let's get new blood". The presumption of a famous unique-name-brand company that continued to gain more influence from fans was that they had their current customer base. Honestly, WotC didn't need to try to sell old-guard on D&D - if they wanted roleplaying, they'd probably find it there far easier because not everyone has access to hobby shops, and those that have to rely on bookstores are more likely to be able to find "big-name" producers, like WotC, than smaller ones (such as most 3PP were at the time).
This is certainly possible. When you have a major convention like Gen Con or Origins, there are massive demands on the time of WotC personnel for seminars, signings, etc. so it is certainly conceivable that someone pressed into service could have misspoke.
On the other hand, individuals of my acquaintence were among the 4e playtesters and some of those provided feedback that it wasn't D&D and they would not continue to play under the proposed rules. So WotC was aware that they had issues with existing gamers, but hubris pressed them to continue with their plans. And they would have got away with it, if it wasn't for the meddling Paizo people. Pathfinder presented an alternative when WotC dropped the ball.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of good posts.
I played Pathfinder because while I like 4E I found I wanted to play 3.5 more. And it was because PF was both backwards compitable and continued 3.5 while coming out with new material for it. I like the APs yet no matter how good they are for me at least it would not have been enough of a reason to switch. And to be honest I'm also getting quite bored of them at this point. Once you get a certain amount you really imo don't need them anymore. The thing about adventures in general is that unless they are desinged from the start to be different eventually they all feel the same. In my experience it's always been the rules people remember and not the adventures because some Dms love them some for good or bad destest them and they never use them. Rules everyone from the Dm to players will use the rules all the time.
Doubtful that you or your players remember the rules more than the adventures. I'd wager against it. If I met you at a random convention, your D&D experiences would either revolve around your characters or experience as a DM. And you'd be telling me how you took on this creature or won this battle or this great encounter you came up with. You wouldn't be reciting to me how stealth works or how the BAB system works and neither would your players.
It doesn't matter if the DM makes his own adventures or runs published adventures, it's the adventures each person will remember about the game, not how CMD versus CMB works or the ruleset. It's the fond memories of playing the game that matter the most, not what the rules were.
That's why D&D has lasted for so many iterations. If the rules were what mattered most, the game would have stopped evolving at the basic set. But the rules can change again and again and again, people will always remember their favorite characters and key encounters in adventure they participated in and so and so on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A ruleset is fairly useless without content to use it with. It makes gaming much harder than it should be, especially as people get older and have less and less time to devote to adventure creation and the like. The Paizo business model was very, very smart.
I don't think this is an absolute though - I imagine I may be in the minority, but for me because I don't have much time I would find Paizo's Adventure Paths not a good fit as I simply don't have time to read them through, instead I am better off writing my own adventures, especially as they would then be tailored to the player characters.
And its not just in D&D I had this, my first rpg was Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and apart from the introductory scenario in the back of the book I wrote all my own adventures.
So as an objective fact, a ruleset is not useless without published adventures at all - though for some people / groups it may be.
I'm talking for the majority. Having easy to run, prepared adventures is a huge boon. The one thing I've found as I get older is that all of us gamers have less and less time to play. Less time to prepare. Less time for the game. So having an easy series of modules to run has been an enormous boon. I'm not even we would still be playing if not for published adventures. I'd be surprised if all the gamers that are married themselves, game with folks that are married or have kids, or simply have a demanding job or life don't find an adventure path to be a great help to making gaming easier for them to enjoy while they toil away at life.
Another thing that astounded me about WotC and their decision to take D&D in a different direction was how big a miscalculation they made with their magic system. Did they really think that alienating their hardest core players was wise?
Who did they think spent more time reading the books? Mr. I want to play a simple fighter or Mr. Wizard. I would be real surprised if a demographic study of D&D players did not show that an inordinate amount of the hardest core D&D players play wizard/caster character's more often and are DMs more often.
Whose going to spend more time reading books? The guy making a simple sword swinging fighter or bow using archer or the guy that has to read every single spell and magic system over to gain every advantage he can. Then they design 4E to screw the guy that probably bought the majority of the books in his group and read them most religiously.
I know the melee loving players in my group usually bought the Core Rulebook and the Complete Fighter. With maybe an extra melee book here and there. While the caster players buy the same books, but also the Spell Compendium, Complete Mage, Complete Divine, Arcana Unearthed, and every magic book they can get their hands on and read them like they truly are ancient tomes of knowledge.
And WotC decides to hamstring the caster players in 4E. One of the dumbest marketing decisions I've seen made in the 30 years I've been playing D&D. I was quite baffled by the decision and still am. I can't believe that marketing numbers didn't clearly show their magic books as some of their best selling books and that creating a water downed magic system would destroy the appeal for caster players. Talk about a huge miscalculation.
I'd really love to see if they can undo that screw up and get back the geeky arcane caster crowd that hated the 4E magic system with a passion, but were some of WotCs most dedicated gamers.
|
|
Another thing that astounded me about WotC and their decision to take D&D in a different direction was how big a miscalculation they made with their magic system. Did they really think that alienating their hardest core players was wise?
I'll have to step in to defend WotC here. Vancian casting has been one of the most criticized elements of the game since before 1E.
Who did they think spent more time reading the books? Mr. I want to play a simple fighter or Mr. Wizard. I would be real surprised if a demographic study of D&D players did not show that an inordinate amount of the hardest core D&D players play wizard/caster character's more often and are DMs more often.
Whose going to spend more time reading books? The guy making a simple sword swinging fighter or bow using archer or the guy that has to read every single spell and magic system over to gain every advantage he can. Then they design 4E to screw the guy that probably bought the majority of the books in his group and read them most religiously.
I'll freely admit to being fairly ignorant in regards to 4E...I took a look at it briefly, it didn't really grab me, and I haven't really looked back since. But are you seriously criticizing it for nerfing the wizard, which was almost universally decried as being unbalancingly overpowered in 3.x ?
I know the melee loving players in my group usually bought the Core Rulebook and the Complete Fighter. With maybe an extra melee book here and there. While the caster players buy the same books, but also the Spell Compendium, Complete Mage, Complete Divine, Arcana Unearthed, and every magic book they can get their hands on and read them like they truly are ancient tomes of knowledge.
And WotC decides to hamstring the caster players in 4E...
ZOMG! They nerfed the overpowered character! BURN THEM!
...One of the dumbest marketing decisions I've seen made in the 30 years I've been playing D&D. I was quite baffled by the decision and still am. I can't believe that marketing numbers didn't clearly show their magic books as some of their best selling books and that creating a water downed magic system would destroy the appeal for caster players. Talk about a huge miscalculation.I'd really love to see if they can undo that screw up and get back the geeky arcane caster crowd that hated the 4E magic system with a passion, but were some of WotCs most dedicated gamers.
|
|
Doubtful that you or your players remember the rules more than the adventures. I'd wager against it. If I met you at a random convention, your D&D experiences would either revolve around your characters or experience as a DM. And you'd be telling me how you took on this creature or won this battle or this great encounter you came up with. You wouldn't be reciting to me how stealth works or how the BAB system works and neither would your players.
True, but the system has to allow those adventures to happen and better still encourage those types of adventures. For example, 4e having easy rules to adjudicate freeform stunts (DC to perform and damage to inflict) may mean players are more willing to try swinging from a chandelier to kick a foe into a hot brazier.
One Call of Cthulhu adventure I really remember was where I was playing the bad guy who had abducted another PC's wife, in the finale the other PC pulled a gun on my character at point blank range - this was it, not chance to dodge, my character was going to die... and then the player rolled a 100; the gun jammed! My PC went on to knock the PC unconscious and evil won the day :)
Now I don't remember exactly which edition of CoC that was (they are very similar) but the fact that it had a rule to indicate a gun jam allowed that memorable moment to happen - in another system that may not have been able to happen.
So I can't agree that system is immaterial and only the adventures matter - its a combination of both that makes for those memorable moments IMHO.
That's why D&D has lasted for so many iterations. If the rules were what mattered most, the game would have stopped evolving at the basic set.
That doesn't make sense to me - if the rule didn't matter, then yes the game may have stopped evolving at the basic set, but they obviously do matter (at least to a significant degree if not "most") as people have evolved the game.
Hell, if rules didn't matter most why are some people so put off 4e and willing to give up on official D&D (with the official D&D settings and monsters) and pursue Pathfinder?
Removed a post and its replies. We really, really, really are tired of the edition war nonsense. Play the games you want to play, and don't denigrate others because of their preferred game system.
I'm not sure how you can say that and then leave this thread as is, which for the most part is little more then thinly veiled 4e bashing.
WotC could be the bilderberg of table top games. +1 for you if you know what bilderberg is without googling it.
-The hydra has many heads, but one body. (and one brain, in the rear)
It was fun for my darkmater campaign when the party couldn't tell the stuff i was getting from conspiracy,the setting and HISTORY/current events.
See the post after Liz's. The posts removed were likely bashing 4E players, not 4E or WotC. If a 4E fan responds, then maybe it's an edition war.
...Another thing that astounded me about WotC and their decision to take D&D in a different direction was how big a miscalculation they made with their magic system. Did they really think that alienating their hardest core players was wise?
I'll have to step in to defend WotC here. Vancian casting has been one of the most criticized elements of the game since before 1E.
Who did they think spent more time reading the books? Mr. I want to play a simple fighter or Mr. Wizard. I would be real surprised if a demographic study of D&D players did not show that an inordinate amount of the hardest core D&D players play wizard/caster character's more often and are DMs more often.
Whose going to spend more time reading books? The guy making a simple sword swinging fighter or bow using archer or the guy that has to read every single spell and magic system over to gain every advantage he can. Then they design 4E to screw the guy that probably bought the majority of the books in his group and read them most religiously.
I'll freely admit to being fairly ignorant in regards to 4E...I took a look at it briefly, it didn't really grab me, and I haven't really looked back since. But are you seriously criticizing it for nerfing the wizard, which was almost universally decried as being unbalancingly overpowered in 3.x ?
I know the melee loving players in my group usually bought the Core Rulebook and the Complete Fighter. With maybe an extra melee book here and there. While the caster players buy the same books, but also the Spell Compendium, Complete Mage, Complete Divine, Arcana Unearthed, and every magic book they can get their hands on and read them like they truly are ancient tomes of knowledge.
And WotC decides to hamstring the caster players in 4E...
ZOMG! They nerfed the overpowered character! BURN THEM!
...One of the dumbest marketing decisions I've seen made in the 30 years I've been playing D&D. I was
I think you missed the point of his post. While the casting classes need work, completely saying "screw you" in the manner that 4E did to caster players, who I tend to agree made up the majority of those who actually read and bought every single splat book, was a dubious move marketing wise.
|
Clearly nothing in the game needs to be fixed because you can just play it! Brilliant!Yeah, soon they will errata problems in the core books. Gotta wait a couple years for Ultimate Combat.Haven't they already released 5 pages of errata for the Core book? Other than strange corner cases, are there really any major problems they have left unresolved? I certainly haven't noticed any. But I guess I'm too busy playing the game to search for obscure loopholes in the rules.
Obviously the game is barely hanging together because you can pop into threads and make snarky comments.
|
|
Doubtful that you or your players remember the rules more than the adventures. I'd wager against it. If I met you at a random convention, your D&D experiences would either revolve around your characters or experience as a DM. And you'd be telling me how you took on this creature or won this battle or this great encounter you came up with. You wouldn't be reciting to me how stealth works or how the BAB system works and neither would your players.
My gaming grouo and myself have been playing D&D and other rpgs for aat least 16 years if not more. By now most adventures at this point tednd to feel the same. I or some other DM/GM can make an adveture or AP as exciting as possible yet been there done that. I'm not saying they will recite rules word for word yet were sure as hell not talking about an adventure we might have played 10 or more years ago. We do talk about it yet it's not as often as you yourself seem to do.
It doesn't matter if the DM makes his own adventures or runs published adventures, it's the adventures each person will remember about the game, not how CMD versus CMB works or the ruleset. It's the fond memories of playing the game that matter the most, not what the rules were.
More often than not it's the bad games we as gamers remember and not the good ones. In our gaming group at least we had a few very bad DMs and players. We do talk about the good games yet in our cases we had some very bad adventures. Now with ore experience and betterr players and dMs were making and playing the good ones.
That's why D&D has lasted for so many iterations. If the rules were what mattered most, the game would have stopped evolving at the basic set. But the rules can change again and again and again, people will always remember their favorite characters and key encounters in adventure they participated in and so and so on.
I get the point your trying to make yet imo it's still both rules and advetures. To me the go hand in hand.
I get the point your trying to make yet imo it's still both rules and advetures. To me the...
Sort of. The biggest difference between Wizards and Paizo at the minute is the focus on the world/background and gaming. When 4e came out I picked up the core rules and felt like I looking at the rules for playing a minature based board game. Whether or not that was true, that was my first impression. I was being encouraged to buy battlemats, counters and so on, and play a game akin to a dice based WoW.
I stumbled onto Paizo's site and bought a few of their Adventure path modules and the world guide - and loved them. What drew me in (and eventually got me playing for the first time in about 15 years) was it felt like the company was still aware that while a lot of their audience wanted to dungeon crawl, there was room for a large group who wanted to roleplay, not worry as much about min/maxing and just enjoy stumbling around the inner sea.
In this they seem to be capturing the spirit of TSR back in the earlier Forgotten Realm/Greyhawk days - of making Roleplaying games rather than tactical board games (totally my perception - many will argue I'm wrong) - and I can't see them losing their audience who've appreciated them keeping the faith, so to speak.
Clearly nothing in the game needs to be fixed because you can just play it! Brilliant!Yeah, soon they will errata problems in the core books. Gotta wait a couple years for Ultimate Combat.Haven't they already released 5 pages of errata for the Core book? Other than strange corner cases, are there really any major problems they have left unresolved? I certainly haven't noticed any. But I guess I'm too busy playing the game to search for obscure loopholes in the rules.Obviously the game is barely hanging together because you can pop into threads and make snarky comments.
You set 'em up, I knock 'em down.
"Monte Cook is WotC's Whedon."
I presume this means that Monte Cook is an overhyped developer who at some point in the past made something that was inexplicably very popular and has cruised on that ever since then both in the eyes of the public and profesionally but has yet to make anything that big again and keeps going back again and again to people who have taken an iron editing fist to all of his subsequent work preventing him from making anything but cult classics that are only cult classics because people are mad at the iron editing fist.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
One think Wizards could do if they wanted me to respect them a little more is do what Paizo did and release more of their copyrights to the OGL. At least then I could end up seeing a cool, legal remake of the Tome of Magic's Binder class. Of course, I'm planning on just homebrewing my own anyway, but still ....
Might I suggest Radiance House?
While Dr. Nardi seems busy with real life and I've not seen anything new, the PDFs are wonderful. It doesn't take much to update them to Pathfinder. (and the conversion doc is free!)
There are issues WOTC needs to contend with, regardless of what direction they take.
1. OGL vs. GSL
2. Third Party Support
3. Copyrights (PDFs, Offline tools)
4. Adventures and/or fluff
At the moment they still have problems with the categories listed, if you consider OGL vs. GSL, the amount of third parties contributing to their products, or the availability of PDFs, or off line tools, and finally release some good adventures and/or fluff. They have too many worlds to contend with at the moment. Add in the additional issue of OGL, and whatever they produce may be borrowed by other game developers anyways.
However, if they can improve D&D with a theoretical 5E, that supports third parties, including being less rigid on releasing products like PDFs or offline tools, but also maintains their own licensing without the risk of someone copying ideas via OGL, and then they would be in a good position. A solid Adventure line and/or fluff would be icing on the cake.
Creating a good game is the biggest hurdle, but OGL and third party support is a close second. The remaining items are about equal depending on your perspective.
As to Paizo, the interesting thing to watch is how fans will react when they make changes to the game. If 5E is a success, then more people would be willing to see Pathfinder change faster, just to spite WOTC. On the other hand, if 5E is close to 4E in success, then I am not sure how fans would react to a theorectical next version of Pathfinder, especially if it occurs in the next 3 years.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Re: 'Modular gaming'.
The problem WotC/Hasbro (WotBro?) ran into with supliments was that none of their published stuff used them through most of 3/x's lifespan. (Dungeon being a notable exception). If I bought Lords of Madness (for example) I'd never see any of the stuff in a module or support for the stuff in future books* Even their web support was erratic and the mission of the web support changed over time.**
The other end of the scale is what Paizo's doing. Any of their content can show up in a module or AP. While this does inconvience some players.*** The fact that the information is available with the PRD does lessen that impact, at least for internet capable customers. If I buy an AP with a grue from Bestiary 2, even if I don't have the Bestiary handy, I can DL/print the grue's stats.****
Another idea of 'modular across the editions' is that mechanics have changed/evolved, etc. over time. It doesn't take much effort to go from 3.0 to 3.5, or the final days of 2e to 3.x for that matter. Going from BECMI to 3.x? a lot of effort. Going to 4th? You have major departures from what came before (mook rules, casting, etc.) How do you write one book for all that?
*
**
***
****
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Paizo has one of the best settings I've ever read (and wonderfully written adventures too). However, I often convert Pathfinder modules to 4e because it makes for a better experience for my players and myself.
I really feel they are being held back by the archaic 3.5 ruleset.
You're wrong :P.
Ok, more seriously, the OGL is what 10 or 11 years old? I'll be 40 in two months. If it's archaic what does that make me? Old enough for Table 3E?
Even more seriously, I never dug into the GSL, but can you share your conversion work online somewhere? Is there a Pathfinder-to-4E group on yahoo or somewhere? I'm sure you and Scott aren't the only two in existance.
|
|
I presume this means that Monte Cook is an overhyped developer who at some point in the past made something that was inexplicably very popular and has cruised on that ever since then both in the eyes of the public and profesionally but has yet to make anything that big again and keeps going back again and again to people who have taken an iron editing fist to all of his subsequent work preventing him from making anything but cult classics that are only cult classics because people are mad at the iron editing fist."Monte Cook is WotC's Whedon."
Monte Cook's best work was Ptolus, surely?
I never dug into the GSL, but can you share your conversion work online somewhere? Is there a Pathfinder-to-4E group on yahoo or somewhere? I'm sure you and Scott aren't the only two in existance.
Add me to the list of folks that convert Paizo adventures to 4E.
Unfortunately, I don't have much in the way of conversion work, per se. 4E is easy enough to DM that I mostly convert on the fly. Sure, I collect up a bunch of stat blocks that approximate the intended encounters (and with more individual creatures, and usually more discrete creatures per encounter - so not a straight-up conversion), but I have never really needed to create detailed notes.
Actually, the vast majority of my prep time is spent on story development for my particular group of PCs. And that's the stuff I tend to have detailed notes for.
But if we wanted to share tips on how to convert the adventures on-the-fly, that could be a really fun (and separate-from-this-thread) discussion.
|
|
Paizo has one of the best settings I've ever read (and wonderfully written adventures too). However, I often convert Pathfinder modules to 4e because it makes for a better experience for my players and myself.
I really feel they are being held back by the archaic 3.5 ruleset.
You're wrong :P.
Ok, more seriously, the OGL is what 10 or 11 years old? I'll be 40 in two months. If it's archaic what does that make me? Old enough for Table 3E?
Even more seriously, I never dug into the GSL, but can you share your conversion work online somewhere? Is there a Pathfinder-to-4E group on yahoo or somewhere? I'm sure you and Scott aren't the only two in existance.
My conversion work is nothing out of the ordinary for 4e. I rebuilt the combat encounters using the rules from the DMG and monsters from the compendium. For just about everything else I used the DC appropriate for the difficulty of the task they were trying to complete. I didn't even bother with skill challenges for the most part.
I DM both 4e and 3.PF. Its much easier getting new people into 4e. Maybe the beginner's box will change that for Paizo.
The signs on the RPG scene these days are pointing to the rather likely possibility that design of the 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons is already under way and possibly has been for some time.
I think this is basically the death knell of WotC and official D&D, they have the name, but all the support is in Paizo's court. 5e may get new players into the game, but based on what happened with 4e, most long-term players are jaded with constant edition revisions. Short of repeating the OGL with 5e, they have in effect lost their monopoly and I can't see them getting it back.
Should Paizo simply attempt to continue its plan for the PFRPG without change and stress stability and/or backward compatibility? Yes. This is their strength, they should stick with it.
Should Paizo release a 2nd edition of the PFRPG to compete for novelty value? No, they'll just annoy existing players that way.
Should Paizo try to sell itself (perhaps even to WotC/Hasbro) along with the PFRPG? Why, when they are doing great?
Should Paizo do an update/refresh of the PFRPG – i.e. PFRPG revised/1.5e akin to what D&D 3.5E did with respect to 3E? Again, this is not going to endear their fan base, and it isn't needed in any event.
Should Paizo expand the PFRPG system in new directions, such as science fiction, wild west, modern, etcetera? Not a bad idea, but they shouldn't do this at the expense of what they are good at.
Should Paizo revert to 3PP status, abandon PFRPG and throw itself behind supporting 5e (depending on the terms offered by a licensing agreement – if any)? (This is the least likely scenario, I think.) Me too. Short of another OGL, it just isn't necessary as they have the player base and the fan support to ignore 5e.
If Wotc with Monte helps actually does do that and they pull it off well hard to see what Paizo could do to counter such a modular edition. Backwards compitability is no longer such a strong selling point if you can get the 3.5 books again even if in digitla format I will predict Wotc will be stronger for it. As for digital no ways around it. On that either you adapt or die. It's not going to go away no matter how much you hide your hands in the sand or click your ruby red shoes toghter and go "I wish, I wish".I really don't see the whole "modular edition" thing happening. There's just far too much difference between the mechanics of 3.X, 4E, and "retro" editions for it to really work short of shoving three systems into one book (and the "retro" portion would have a good half-dozen variations itself). The end result would be something that would be impossible to write for.
I have to agree. If they do the Modular, than what is that going to mean for support? If they put out a AD&D. and 3rd edition analogue, along with a 4e, are they going to release adventures and sourcebooks in all three forms. I don't think that is wise. How would they organize that print run?
I see WOTC releasing a TOKEN game for previous editions perhaps with DDI support. The game older fans wanted I am quite sure will barely be supported.
The OGL is dead for WOTC. I CAN see them releasing material for the PATHFINDER OGL, but WOTC may just be too MAJOR of a company for that. That would be funny irony. Fact is WOTC has always been the 800lb gorilla. But that 800 lb gorilla left its OGC food around and Paizo got ahold of it. Now Paizo is the 780 lb gorilla. It does not have the maneuvarability of WOTC, but it is about equal in market share. Thanks to the OGL and Paizo Talent.
|
|
Should Paizo release a 2nd edition of the PFRPG to compete for novelty value? No, they'll just annoy existing players that way.
I dunno. They are kinda doing this with the beginner's box. While not a second edition per say it will be a trimmed down version of the PFRPG from the way I understand it.
It seems to have the same goal as the essentials line from wizards. Attract new players by making a product that reduces the learning curve.
Ignoring new customers is just silly. Paizo is getting big enough to where they can provide products that attract new customers while still supporting their current ones.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My 2 copper:
I am going to make a bold statement.
WHO CARES WHAT WOTC DOSE, IF THERE IS A 5E OR NOT, IF THEY MOVE EVERYTHING ON LINE OR NOT!
You need to ask your self a few question.
Will it kill RPGs? No.
Will it affect PFRPG? No.
Will folks still play the version of D&D (1E, 2E, 3E, PF, 4E) that they enjoy? Of course they will.
Thats all I have to say on this.
Monte Cook's best work was Ptolus, surely?I presume this means that Monte Cook is an overhyped developer who at some point in the past made something that was inexplicably very popular and has cruised on that ever since then both in the eyes of the public and profesionally but has yet to make anything that big again and keeps going back again and again to people who have taken an iron editing fist to all of his subsequent work preventing him from making anything but cult classics that are only cult classics because people are mad at the iron editing fist."Monte Cook is WotC's Whedon."
Actually, I have enjoyed his Arcana Unearthed/Evolved line and Iron Heroes. The only thing that is clunky for me, as an annoying resource to track. are the token pools, which PF has with Grit and Ki. Not that they are bad, just not a fan of them. Of course, any action point mechanic/variant irritates me as a gamer ever since the Destiny Point mechanic of Star Wars Saga.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having played RPG's for going a a solid 20yrs I have to say there are two main reasons the groups I am in choose to play Pathfinder.
1. Those red-eyed comically ferocious goblins
2. It's customer care Paizo wants their staff concentrate on. They have proven time and time again through excellent content in monthly books, new and interesting stuff in splat books and Cosmo.
One group I was in played 4e long enough to realize that the system was stale and that WotC truly had zero concern or care for its customers. I was a huge DD3 fan, liked the changes to 3.5 and hoped that 4e would have turned out differently. When they took their magazines out of my bathroom despite the hue and cry it caused I knew this company wanted to put out a quality product, not for me to enjoy, but purely to keep the profit margin in place. It showed and now my hard earned scratch goes to Paizo and will for the foreseeable future. I haven't even visited the D&D home page in months yet I visit Paizo daily. Forget the rules, forget the adventures I have been sitting around with my friends playing RPG's in all their forms and crappy rules systems were made awesome by great GM's and good friends to play them with. I would play any edition of any RPG, and still would to this day, this company shows so much respect to it's fans that I will support them until they stop printing. Hasbro lost my business by not caring about my wants, Paizo earned it by giving me more than I asked for.
Good luck with 5e I can't wait to play it on WWGD, our groups now annual foray into 4e.
|
|
Wow - I could not DISAGREE more with this.... I often convert Pathfinder modules to 4e because it makes for a better experience for my players and myself.
I really feel they are being held back by the archaic 3.5 ruleset.
Good for you? It is much easier getting people new to table top gaming into 4e, especially Essentials, than it is for Pathfinder. I'm pretty such Paizo knows this. It's why they are releasing a trimmed down version of the game that is intended for beginners. See the beginner's box.
Actually, I have enjoyed his Arcana Unearthed/Evolved line and Iron Heroes. The only thing that is clunky for me, as an annoying resource to track. are the token pools, which PF has with Grit and Ki. Not that they are bad, just not a fan of them. Of course, any action point mechanic/variant irritates me as a gamer ever since the Destiny Point mechanic of Star Wars Saga.Monte Cook's best work was Ptolus, surely?I presume this means that Monte Cook is an overhyped developer who at some point in the past made something that was inexplicably very popular and has cruised on that ever since then both in the eyes of the public and profesionally but has yet to make anything that big again and keeps going back again and again to people who have taken an iron editing fist to all of his subsequent work preventing him from making anything but cult classics that are only cult classics because people are mad at the iron editing fist."Monte Cook is WotC's Whedon."
I think we are all overanalyzing a joke at the expense of the hero-worshiped Joss Whedon.
My 2 copper:
I am going to make a bold statement.
WHO CARES WHAT WOTC DOSE, IF THERE IS A 5E OR NOT, IF THEY MOVE EVERYTHING ON LINE OR NOT!
I care -- both because I curious what they might cook up, and because I'm interested in the potential effect on the industry.