paizo.com Recent Posts in 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)paizo.com Recent Posts in 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)2012-07-18T01:23:21Z2012-07-18T01:23:21ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)DigitalMagehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1392012-07-18T10:11:06Z2012-07-18T10:11:06Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Thorkull wrote:</div><blockquote>I was using Simulationist and Game in the definition of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_Model" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Threefold Model</a>. I wasn't addressing the Drama side of the model as you can adjust Drama largely independent of game mechanics. To sum up, I feel 4E pushes a Gamist approach rather than a Simulationist approach, regardless of how Dramatist it is.</blockquote><p>I guess I just perceive it differently, the Gamist emphasis didn't seem to me to change much between 3.5 and 4e, but rather the Simulationist focus changed more to a Narrativist focus (for me the idea of Encounter and Daily martial exploits is purely a narativist pacing mechanic for example).Thorkull wrote:I was using Simulationist and Game in the definition of the Threefold Model. I wasn't addressing the Drama side of the model as you can adjust Drama largely independent of game mechanics. To sum up, I feel 4E pushes a Gamist approach rather than a Simulationist approach, regardless of how Dramatist it is.
I guess I just perceive it differently, the Gamist emphasis didn't seem to me to change much between 3.5 and 4e, but rather the Simulationist focus changed more to a...DigitalMage2012-07-18T10:11:06ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)GM Elton (alias of Elton)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1382012-07-18T01:23:21Z2012-07-18T00:49:15Z<p>Come to think of it, if 5e can make us forget that 4e had happened, then it would accomplish something WotC has never foreseen. Gamers coming together and forgetting the mistakes of the past.</p>Come to think of it, if 5e can make us forget that 4e had happened, then it would accomplish something WotC has never foreseen. Gamers coming together and forgetting the mistakes of the past.GM Elton (alias of Elton)2012-07-18T00:49:15ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)Thorkullhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1372012-07-17T22:28:13Z2012-07-17T22:28:13Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">DigitalMage wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Thorkull wrote:</div><blockquote>4E abandoned anything like a simulationist approach and went completely to the game side of it.</blockquote><p>I can agree with part of this, though I feel as much as 4e went to the game side of it, 4e also pushed more towards a more narrative perspective, putting what makes a good story above simulation-ism e.g. having NPCs be able to do what the plot requires of them; letting the players decide when circumstances conspire to allow their fighter to pull off that once a day killer move (as opposed to letting the dice determine it) so that the killer move is used on a henchmen or main villain rather than "wasted" on a mook.
</p>
</blockquote><p>I was using Simulationist and Game in the definition of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_Model" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Threefold Model</a>. I wasn't addressing the Drama side of the model as you can adjust Drama largely independent of game mechanics. To sum up, I feel 4E pushes a Gamist approach rather than a Simulationist approach, regardless of how Dramatist it is.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Thorkull wrote:</div><blockquote>The magic items, too, felt very generic. Far from moving magic items back to the mysterious and cool aspects in 1E/2E/BECMI, they felt even more like simple bolt-ons to your class. </blockquote>Again I can sort of agree with this, though TBH I can see much the same thing in 3.5 and PF. Apparently in DDN this is going to change so that magic item powers become more mysterious than just +1 Longsword with d6 extra fire damage. They talk about magic items growing with the PC which remind me of Earthdawn and how you research a magic item to unlock new powers and weave threads between it and you. </blockquote><p>As I said, "far from moving ... back to ... mysterious". I fully acknowledge that 3E+ moved away from that, but I feel like 4E ran screaming from mystery in your magic items.DigitalMage wrote:Thorkull wrote:4E abandoned anything like a simulationist approach and went completely to the game side of it.
I can agree with part of this, though I feel as much as 4e went to the game side of it, 4e also pushed more towards a more narrative perspective, putting what makes a good story above simulation-ism e.g. having NPCs be able to do what the plot requires of them; letting the players decide when circumstances conspire to allow their fighter to pull off that once a day...Thorkull2012-07-17T22:28:13ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)GM Elton (alias of Elton)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1362012-07-17T22:15:32Z2012-07-17T22:15:32Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Stefan Hill wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
If WotC's plan is too make people leave Paizo they will fail. I suspect they are providing another style of play of a fantasy RPG however. </blockquote><p>When my cousin was in nostalgic rapture after I gave him the play test documents, this is exactly how I felt. He felt in rapture because the rules reminded him of Original/BECMI D&D. I, however, felt it was time to look to the future and I can't wait to see the Character Creation rules pop up! :)
<p>I asked a friend of mine, who I don't hate as a person but was rabid about 4th ed, if he saw any 4th ed influence in the play test materials — he said he did. I'm betting on that we see a lot of 4th ed. influence in character creation.</p>Stefan Hill wrote:If WotC's plan is too make people leave Paizo they will fail. I suspect they are providing another style of play of a fantasy RPG however.
When my cousin was in nostalgic rapture after I gave him the play test documents, this is exactly how I felt. He felt in rapture because the rules reminded him of Original/BECMI D&D. I, however, felt it was time to look to the future and I can't wait to see the Character Creation rules pop up! :) I asked a friend of mine, who I don't...GM Elton (alias of Elton)2012-07-17T22:15:32ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)DigitalMagehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1352012-07-12T06:47:59Z2012-07-12T06:47:59Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Thorkull wrote:</div><blockquote>4E abandoned anything like a simulationist approach and went completely to the game side of it.</blockquote><p>I can agree with part of this, though I feel as much as 4e went to the game side of it, 4e also pushed more towards a more narrative perspective, putting what makes a good story above simulation-ism e.g. having NPCs be able to do what the plot requires of them; letting the players decide when circumstances conspire to allow their fighter to pull off that once a day killer move (as opposed to letting the dice determine it) so that the killer move is used on a henchmen or main villain rather than "wasted" on a mook.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Thorkull wrote:</div><blockquote>The magic items, too, felt very generic. Far from moving magic items back to the mysterious and cool aspects in 1E/2E/BECMI, they felt even more like simple bolt-ons to your class. </blockquote><p>Again I can sort of agree with this, though TBH I can see much the same thing in 3.5 and PF. Apparently in DDN this is going to change so that magic item powers become more mysterious than just +1 Longsword with d6 extra fire damage. They talk about magic items growing with the PC which remind me of Earthdawn and how you research a magic item to unlock new powers and weave threads between it and you.Thorkull wrote:4E abandoned anything like a simulationist approach and went completely to the game side of it.
I can agree with part of this, though I feel as much as 4e went to the game side of it, 4e also pushed more towards a more narrative perspective, putting what makes a good story above simulation-ism e.g. having NPCs be able to do what the plot requires of them; letting the players decide when circumstances conspire to allow their fighter to pull off that once a day killer move (as...DigitalMage2012-07-12T06:47:59ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)Scott Bettshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1342012-07-12T04:58:36Z2012-07-12T04:58:36Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Thorkull wrote:</div><blockquote>In retrospect, I feel like 4E was a great miniatures tabletop skirmish game where all the classes were balanced against each other and had very defined roles which no amount of player creativity could break them out of.</blockquote><p>Out of curiosity, did you try? Nearly every class can be tricked out to satisfy a different role than the one it's commonly described as. Some of them are even arguably better than in their original role! For instance, even pre-Essentials, you could make some astonishingly powerful striker Fighters.Thorkull wrote:In retrospect, I feel like 4E was a great miniatures tabletop skirmish game where all the classes were balanced against each other and had very defined roles which no amount of player creativity could break them out of.
Out of curiosity, did you try? Nearly every class can be tricked out to satisfy a different role than the one it's commonly described as. Some of them are even arguably better than in their original role! For instance, even pre-Essentials, you could make some...Scott Betts2012-07-12T04:58:36ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)Thorkullhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1332012-07-11T20:15:21Z2012-07-11T20:15:21Z<p>@theroc:</p>
<p>I think 4E stopped feeling like D&D to me because, while D&D has always been a game, 4E abandoned anything like a simulationist approach and went completely to the game side of it. It was, if anything, too balanced. In earlier editions, an elf was not the same as a human or a dwarf in power levels — a lot of that got smoothed out in 3.x, but it was still present to some extent.</p>
<p>In retrospect, I feel like 4E was a great miniatures tabletop skirmish game where all the classes were balanced against each other and had very defined roles which no amount of player creativity could break them out of. </p>
<p>The magic items, too, felt very generic. Far from moving magic items back to the mysterious and cool aspects in 1E/2E/BECMI, they felt even more like simple bolt-ons to your class.</p>@theroc:
I think 4E stopped feeling like D&D to me because, while D&D has always been a game, 4E abandoned anything like a simulationist approach and went completely to the game side of it. It was, if anything, too balanced. In earlier editions, an elf was not the same as a human or a dwarf in power levels -- a lot of that got smoothed out in 3.x, but it was still present to some extent.
In retrospect, I feel like 4E was a great miniatures tabletop skirmish game where all the classes were...Thorkull2012-07-11T20:15:21ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)therochttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1322012-07-11T20:00:06Z2012-07-11T20:00:06Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">thejeff wrote:</div><blockquote></p>
<p>Well, I didn't stop "rolling dice and roleplaying", but then I did that in Call of Cthulhu, Feng Shui, Gurps, Champions and many other systems and none of them felt like D&D to me. </blockquote><p>Jeff, you caught me. I jumped ahead in my response to directly hit those things Edition Warriors complain about when saying 4E didn't feel like D&D (grid, roleplaying, etc). Your point of those don't affect other games feel is valid, and the point I was trying to make is simply that I have not heard a valid reason for "it doesn't feel like D&D because..." Thanks for keeping me honest.
<p>Most of this really depends on the DM, and maybe some DMs had trouble adapting to the new system. When watching Chris Perkins DMing, it shows what can be done with the system.</p>
<p>Please don't take my comment as a slam on Pathfinder players. I think we should all be friends in the hobby we love. I am in the same boat as 3E players were...WotC also prematurely killed the version I enjoy (4E). So I will likely play 4E (and 1st and 2nd Edition) when D&D Next releases...unless it blows me away. Never know...I delayed looking at 4E for a while until I finally checked it out and was pleasantly surprised. And as great as Paizo has taken care and understood their customers, I wish my favorite version was in their hands, not WotC.</p>thejeff wrote:Well, I didn't stop "rolling dice and roleplaying", but then I did that in Call of Cthulhu, Feng Shui, Gurps, Champions and many other systems and none of them felt like D&D to me.
Jeff, you caught me. I jumped ahead in my response to directly hit those things Edition Warriors complain about when saying 4E didn't feel like D&D (grid, roleplaying, etc). Your point of those don't affect other games feel is valid, and the point I was trying to make is simply that I have not heard...theroc2012-07-11T20:00:06ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)thejeffhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1312012-07-11T19:01:42Z2012-07-11T19:01:42Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">theroc wrote:</div><blockquote> I see these types of comments, but completely don't get it. I have been playing D&D since '79, and there was NOTHING in 4E that made it 'not D&D'. Did something happen that you stopped rolling dice and roleplaying? All the things that made up the D&D feel exist in every version. I very strongly dislike 3E. It was the only version of D&D that made me stop playing the game after 3.5 released. But that doesn't mean that it still didn't feel like D&D. They all do.</blockquote><p>Well, I didn't stop "rolling dice and roleplaying", but then I did that in Call of Cthulhu, Feng Shui, Gurps, Champions and many other systems and none of them felt like D&D to me. 4E didn't either, but it was close enough that I kept expecting it to. Thus the dissonance.
<p>It took a long time for me to warm up to 3E when it came out, but it didn't feel as foreign as 4E. </p>
<p>Edit: Of course, we're discussing feelings, which are necessarily subjective.</p>theroc wrote:I see these types of comments, but completely don't get it. I have been playing D&D since '79, and there was NOTHING in 4E that made it 'not D&D'. Did something happen that you stopped rolling dice and roleplaying? All the things that made up the D&D feel exist in every version. I very strongly dislike 3E. It was the only version of D&D that made me stop playing the game after 3.5 released. But that doesn't mean that it still didn't feel like D&D. They all do.
Well, I didn't...thejeff2012-07-11T19:01:42ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)therochttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1302012-07-11T18:42:33Z2012-07-11T18:42:33Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">WormysQueue wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>I remember that at a certain point I was totally confused by the way they kept telling me that the game would remain the same (with or without french accent) while at the same time changing it into something which didn't seem to have anything to do with the game I actually was playing.
<br />
</blockquote><p>I see these types of comments, but completely don't get it. I have been playing D&D since '79, and there was NOTHING in 4E that made it 'not D&D'. Did something happen that you stopped rolling dice and roleplaying? All the things that made up the D&D feel exist in every version. I very strongly dislike 3E. It was the only version of D&D that made me stop playing the game after 3.5 released. But that doesn't mean that it still didn't feel like D&D. They all do.
<p>And before someone jumps in with "you need a grid", you can save that one. The grid has been a strong component of the game since 2nd Edition Players Options, and we have used minis since the beginning of D&D.</p>WormysQueue wrote:I remember that at a certain point I was totally confused by the way they kept telling me that the game would remain the same (with or without french accent) while at the same time changing it into something which didn't seem to have anything to do with the game I actually was playing.
I see these types of comments, but completely don't get it. I have been playing D&D since '79, and there was NOTHING in 4E that made it 'not D&D'. Did something happen that you stopped...theroc2012-07-11T18:42:33ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)Kagehirohttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1292012-07-11T18:09:22Z2012-07-11T18:09:22Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sissyl wrote:</div><blockquote> If it can't bring back PPD, PP, RSW, BW, S saves, it's no good. =) </blockquote><p>I thought it was PPD, RSW, PP, BW, S :PSissyl wrote:If it can't bring back PPD, PP, RSW, BW, S saves, it's no good. =)
I thought it was PPD, RSW, PP, BW, S :PKagehiro2012-07-11T18:09:22ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)Jeremy Mac Donaldhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1282012-07-10T00:44:40Z2012-07-10T00:44:40Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Steve Geddes wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Stefan Hill wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Funny you should see that as a downside. Coming from DMing 1e AD&D that was the job description of the DM and I found at the codfied nature of 3e/3.5e made DMing nothing more than being a human computer to the 'rules'. 4e did reverse this slightly but then they put the albatross of the rules around you neck or battle-mat or nothing. Oh we tried 4e without a mat, but it sort of failed due to the need to know how many 'squares' you were away all of the time. I think had 4e taken the tact 5e has of battle-mat if like or no battle-mat if like then I would have been very happy with 4e for the reason you give - and some of the DM shackles that 3/3.5e forced on us. Coming from 1e, D&D is NOT a board game where players and DM's have to play by the same exact rules - rules yes, but they don't have to be universally true for both sides of the screen for the game to be fun.</p>
<p>S. </blockquote>I have a similar view. The reason I preferred 4E to PF was basically the increased amount of DM fiat. It didnt seem a common position, but I found it closer to AD&D than 3.5 was. I'm encouraged by the focus of expanding this role for the DM in the latest iteration. </blockquote><p>I see the big difference between 1-2E and 4E in this regard is that 4E is a guideline system. The DM makes most of the choices and in fact must choose but there are tons of tools that say 'for characters of X level here is the guideline for your choices'. The DM is always free to deviate but there are these guidelines so the DM can quickly get to the default choice.
<p>Now all of this is on the DM side - the players side remains very structured. In effect the DM uses creativity with guidelines to build the scenes and adventures - which is usually where the DM most wants freedom of control while the players use structured character creation systems...which is usually where they most want a stable system that they can evaluate. Players don't usually like playing Mother May I with their characters they want things to be concrete...in 4E the Dm does not have a lot of power to change this element (without really going crazy with rule 0) while the players can't tell the DM how a necromancer works - necromancer is the DMs domain and it works however the f••• the DM wants it to work. </p>
<p>This is probably what I like most about 4E. The players get the part of the game most important to them to be structured which is usually what they are looking for the DM gets the scene creation and adventure design freedom which is usually the part most near and dear to the DMs heart. Each side does make a compromise in the part of the game where the other side is most invested. </p>
<p>We then kind of get into a slightly unusual case where combat once it starts is generally very structured while social scenes are not very structured at all (and what structure that one does see in the DMG should be ignored - its mainly done away with in later updates).</p>Steve Geddes wrote:Stefan Hill wrote:Funny you should see that as a downside. Coming from DMing 1e AD&D that was the job description of the DM and I found at the codfied nature of 3e/3.5e made DMing nothing more than being a human computer to the 'rules'. 4e did reverse this slightly but then they put the albatross of the rules around you neck or battle-mat or nothing. Oh we tried 4e without a mat, but it sort of failed due to the need to know how many 'squares' you were away all of the time....Jeremy Mac Donald2012-07-10T00:44:40ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)Kevidahttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1272012-07-09T17:30:09Z2012-07-09T17:30:09Z<p>As others have said, it all comes down to group dynamic.If the DM/GM/Referee/Story_Teller/etc is bad, then the game suffers. I a player is bad (be he/she a Rules Lawyer, Power Gamer, or whatever)then the game suffers. I have had the greatest times with a great group even when the system was (to put it kindly) "not so great" and I have had the worst times with great rule sets where one or two members of the group "drug everyone else down" (be they running the game or playing it).
<br />
Bottom Line: Game system doesn't matter to me as they all have their pros and cons.</p>As others have said, it all comes down to group dynamic.If the DM/GM/Referee/Story_Teller/etc is bad, then the game suffers. I a player is bad (be he/she a Rules Lawyer, Power Gamer, or whatever)then the game suffers. I have had the greatest times with a great group even when the system was (to put it kindly) "not so great" and I have had the worst times with great rule sets where one or two members of the group "drug everyone else down" (be they running the game or playing it).
Bottom Line:...Kevida2012-07-09T17:30:09ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)Kthulhuhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1262012-06-12T12:26:30Z2012-06-12T12:26:30Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Stefan Hill wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
I still amazed by the completeness of the Rule Cyclopedia. Not many games include such mass battle rules for truly epic play, not to mention the rules on making a land to lord over - which are very fun to use on 9th+ level PCs. I would say that the system in Birthright (2e) was more complete regards to lands and lording etc but I don't know if it was better as such in terms of fun. Add in the weapon mastery rules from the Cyclopedia and the whole Wizard vs Fighter argument doesn't seem as bad as in 3/3.5e/PFRPG.
<br />
</blockquote><p>Yeah. It's funny to me that the "Basic" line includes some options like mass battle and weapon mastery that never made it over to the "Advanced" line. Hell, mass battle rules never even made it into the core rules of ANY edition...other than BECMI/RC.Stefan Hill wrote:I still amazed by the completeness of the Rule Cyclopedia. Not many games include such mass battle rules for truly epic play, not to mention the rules on making a land to lord over - which are very fun to use on 9th+ level PCs. I would say that the system in Birthright (2e) was more complete regards to lands and lording etc but I don't know if it was better as such in terms of fun. Add in the weapon mastery rules from the Cyclopedia and the whole Wizard vs Fighter argument...Kthulhu2012-06-12T12:26:30ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)DM Nick (alias of HarbinNick)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1252012-06-12T10:50:03Z2012-06-12T10:50:03Z<p>-If a DM wants to kill the party, they die. If the DM is a jerk his players stop playing. No rule set will prevent a DM from being a jerk, nor will a ruleset force the players to stop playing. The fact that so many DM's are power hungry jerks has more to do with the fact RPG's appeal to power fantasies deeply held by 40 year old virgin types. Unlucky at cards and love, they see DM'ing as their chance to revenge themselves on a harsh cruel society. Sadly this is all to common.
<br />
-Original DM's were strongly, strongly, against the party. It was party VS DM but at some point the hobby was supposed to move on beyond that. Some people missed the memo.
<br />
-Honestly as DM, I can say, the pit it too big, or I can say maybe. Maybe means you have a chance. It might be 5% it might be 90%. But those rules are there.</p>-If a DM wants to kill the party, they die. If the DM is a jerk his players stop playing. No rule set will prevent a DM from being a jerk, nor will a ruleset force the players to stop playing. The fact that so many DM's are power hungry jerks has more to do with the fact RPG's appeal to power fantasies deeply held by 40 year old virgin types. Unlucky at cards and love, they see DM'ing as their chance to revenge themselves on a harsh cruel society. Sadly this is all to common.
-Original DM's...DM Nick (alias of HarbinNick)2012-06-12T10:50:03ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)Kthulhuhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1242012-06-12T10:24:25Z2012-06-12T10:24:25Z<p>Stefan - Have you heard of Dark Dungeons? It's a Rules Cyclopedia retro-clone. People who are really itching to have a copy of the out-of-print RC but unwilling to pay the often quite high price could do worse than to settle for Dark Dungeons.</p>Stefan - Have you heard of Dark Dungeons? It's a Rules Cyclopedia retro-clone. People who are really itching to have a copy of the out-of-print RC but unwilling to pay the often quite high price could do worse than to settle for Dark Dungeons.Kthulhu2012-06-12T10:24:25ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)Stefan Hillhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1232012-06-12T09:01:13Z2012-06-12T09:01:13Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kthulhu wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Stefan Hill wrote:</div><blockquote> The D&D Rule Cyclopedia for me IS the most awesome D&D ever made. Speak about setting the gold standard for one book ever needed. I'm still amazed that so many RPG these days pack so little content into so many pages... </blockquote><p>It's one of the best. I don't think I've run across rules for mass battles in a fantasy setting that compare to the BECMI/RC rules yet.
</p>
</blockquote><p>I still amazed by the completeness of the Rule Cyclopedia. Not many games include such mass battle rules for truly epic play, not to mention the rules on making a land to lord over - which are very fun to use on 9th+ level PCs. I would say that the system in Birthright (2e) was more complete regards to lands and lording etc but I don't know if it was better as such in terms of fun. Add in the weapon mastery rules from the Cyclopedia and the whole Wizard vs Fighter argument doesn't seem as bad as in 3/3.5e/PFRPG.
<p>Real shame this book hasn't been reprinted.</p>
<p>S.</p>Kthulhu wrote:Stefan Hill wrote: The D&D Rule Cyclopedia for me IS the most awesome D&D ever made. Speak about setting the gold standard for one book ever needed. I'm still amazed that so many RPG these days pack so little content into so many pages...
It's one of the best. I don't think I've run across rules for mass battles in a fantasy setting that compare to the BECMI/RC rules yet.
I still amazed by the completeness of the Rule Cyclopedia. Not many games include such mass battle rules...Stefan Hill2012-06-12T09:01:13ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)Kthulhuhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1222012-06-11T09:36:46Z2012-06-11T09:36:46Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Stefan Hill wrote:</div><blockquote> The D&D Rule Cyclopedia for me IS the most awesome D&D ever made. Speak about setting the gold standard for one book ever needed. I'm still amazed that so many RPG these days pack so little content into so many pages... </blockquote><p>It's one of the best. I don't think I've run across rules for mass battles in a fantasy setting that compare to the BECMI/RC rules yet.
<p>However, I'd have to say that I prefer Swords & Wizardry: Complete on the whole. Luckily, all the pre-d20 versions of D&D are close enough that you can generally plug stuff from one system into another with minimal conversion.</p>Stefan Hill wrote:The D&D Rule Cyclopedia for me IS the most awesome D&D ever made. Speak about setting the gold standard for one book ever needed. I'm still amazed that so many RPG these days pack so little content into so many pages...
It's one of the best. I don't think I've run across rules for mass battles in a fantasy setting that compare to the BECMI/RC rules yet. However, I'd have to say that I prefer Swords & Wizardry: Complete on the whole. Luckily, all the pre-d20 versions of D&D...Kthulhu2012-06-11T09:36:46ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)Kthulhuhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1212012-06-12T08:55:49Z2012-06-11T09:17:10Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">DigitalMage wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
The thing is, a rule set can never exhaustively cover all possible actions a player may want their character to take - so a good ruleset gives the rules for the most common and likely actions and then guidelines on how to handle other actions.
<br />
</blockquote><p>Agreed. And people vary on how much they consider "enough" for the rules to cover. I personally like a lot less. For me, 3.X/PFRPG already tries way too hard to be exhaustive, and suffers for the effort. For some others, they probably wish it covered more. Neither one of us is wrong..we just have different styles.
<p>[Spoiler omitted]</p>
<p>I like the basic concept of d20 system...roll a d20, apply a modifier, compare to a Dificulty Class...it's a great mechanic. Unfortunately, the "apply a modifier" step is where the system begins to fall to pieces. The system suffers the death of 1000 modifiers...most rolls in the game have way too many modifiers coming from way too many places. It's not just exhaustive, it's exhausting.</p>DigitalMage wrote:The thing is, a rule set can never exhaustively cover all possible actions a player may want their character to take - so a good ruleset gives the rules for the most common and likely actions and then guidelines on how to handle other actions.
Agreed. And people vary on how much they consider "enough" for the rules to cover. I personally like a lot less. For me, 3.X/PFRPG already tries way too hard to be exhaustive, and suffers for the effort. For some others, they probably...Kthulhu2012-06-11T09:17:10ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)DigitalMagehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1202012-06-11T09:08:00Z2012-06-11T08:49:13Z<p>The thing is, a rule set can never exhaustively cover all possible actions a player may want their character to take - so a good ruleset gives the rules for the most common and likely actions and then guidelines on how to handle other actions.</p>
<p>I therefore don't see D&D Next as being a "Mother May I?" system, there seem to be quite concrete rules for many actions, along with guidance to allow the GM to adjudicate other actions not covered.</p>
<p>Monte Cook seems to be talking about just this thing in his blog article here: <a href="http://montecook.livejournal.com/254395.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://montecook.livejournal.com/254395.html</a></p>
<p>Here is a pertinent quite from under the section entitled "GM May I?":
<br />
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Monte Cook's Blog wrote:</div><blockquote>Speaking of which, it's also important that the rules present themselves in such a way that the GM isn't providing "permission," he's adjudicating. It's a fine difference, but an important one. When a player says, "Can my character jump across the pit?" she's not asking, "May my character jump across the pit?" She's asking, "Does it seem possible that my character could jump across the pit?" Players are in control of their characters. They don't need GM permission.</blockquote><p>The thing is, a rule set can never exhaustively cover all possible actions a player may want their character to take - so a good ruleset gives the rules for the most common and likely actions and then guidelines on how to handle other actions.
I therefore don't see D&D Next as being a "Mother May I?" system, there seem to be quite concrete rules for many actions, along with guidance to allow the GM to adjudicate other actions not covered.
Monte Cook seems to be talking about just this thing...DigitalMage2012-06-11T08:49:13ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)DropBearHunterhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1192012-06-09T06:10:26Z2012-06-09T06:10:26Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">thejeff wrote:</div><blockquote>If he wants a chasm you can't jump, he just has to figure out how far you can jump and make it wider than that, rather than just say it's too far to jump. Does that really make a big difference? </blockquote><p>the difference is in how much thought went into it:
<p><b>the chasm is</b> <i>best acrobatics modifier + magical buff + 20</i> <b>wide, you can hear water roaring at the bottom</b> </p>
<p>is a different story than </p>
<p><b>there is a chasm</b> (I haven't got a clue how far you can jump but) <b>that is too wide to jump
<br />
even with that magical buff
<br />
and btw. it's deeper than your spiderclimb spell last too </b>(not that I know how long that is either)</p>
<p>so yes, it is a big difference.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kthulhu wrote:</div><blockquote>d20/3.X/PFRPG is still playing Mother-May-I. Only Mother is a huge stack of books instead of a person. </blockquote><p>it's only MMI to people who didn't read the rules
</p>
everyone else <i>could</i> know what they can or cannot do.
<br />
MMI only comes up for stuff not in the book, like doing a flic flac to pick up dropped weapon as part of movement; to be able to attck in the same round.</p>
<p>huge stack of books?
<br />
The chapters <i>Races</i> to <i>Feats</i> is a little more than 100 pages
<br />
of that the players need only know their own race, class feats and skills they most commonly use. Is that too much to ask of the players?</p>thejeff wrote:If he wants a chasm you can't jump, he just has to figure out how far you can jump and make it wider than that, rather than just say it's too far to jump. Does that really make a big difference?
the difference is in how much thought went into it: the chasm is best acrobatics modifier + magical buff + 20 wide, you can hear water roaring at the bottom
is a different story than
there is a chasm (I haven't got a clue how far you can jump but) that is too wide to jump
even with...DropBearHunter2012-06-09T06:10:26ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)MMCJawahttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1182012-06-09T02:17:29Z2012-06-09T02:17:29Z<p>I doubt Paizo is going to abandon Pathfinder for 5th edition, or even make any move to support it (if an OGL is produced). They have a rule set for use with their adventures, modules, and setting that they have complete control over. And I don't think they have enough staff or funding to support parallel lines of role playing games without hurting pathfinder.</p>
<p>Frankly, it appears to me that Paizo and WOTC are both going after different groups of role-players. Paizo has the hardcore 3.0/3.5 crowd, and WOTC is hope to bring in 1E and 2nd E crowds and keep their 4E audience. My real question will be whether they will be successful in keeping both audiences to make DnD 5th a success.</p>I doubt Paizo is going to abandon Pathfinder for 5th edition, or even make any move to support it (if an OGL is produced). They have a rule set for use with their adventures, modules, and setting that they have complete control over. And I don't think they have enough staff or funding to support parallel lines of role playing games without hurting pathfinder.
Frankly, it appears to me that Paizo and WOTC are both going after different groups of role-players. Paizo has the hardcore 3.0/3.5...MMCJawa2012-06-09T02:17:29ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)Hitdicehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1172012-06-08T21:21:19Z2012-06-08T21:21:19Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Arnwyn wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">thejeff wrote:</div><blockquote>Does that really make a big difference?</blockquote><p>Turns out... yes. (For a number of people.)
<p>But this idea of making a "chasm you can't jump" on purpose is a little alien to me. As a DM, I just 'make a chasm'. I'm not concerned about making things that a character can or can't do on purpose. Things just <i>are</i>. If the character can jump it... great. If not, then not. Whatever. All that and the player can determine it all on their own without Mother-Maying-I me. And, best of all - it's always consistent (a major flaw on the human DM side, regardless of certain people's protests... because if it is consistent, then you've suddenly got a rule. Done and done).</p>
<p>I can understand why some people don't like the above... but that's not where my interest lies. Consistency, reliability, and predictability are near the top in my book. </blockquote><p>You probably don't like water hazards on golf courses, am I right? :P
<p>Seriously though, I think the way skills scale in 3E/3.5/PF is out of control, as in, by about 12th level any PC with ranks in jump/acrobatics can make it over any environmental feature they can see. (Okay, maybe not mountains, but anything on a lower order of magnitude than a hill better look out.) Thus I convinced my gaming group to play E8.</p>Arnwyn wrote:thejeff wrote:Does that really make a big difference?
Turns out... yes. (For a number of people.) But this idea of making a "chasm you can't jump" on purpose is a little alien to me. As a DM, I just 'make a chasm'. I'm not concerned about making things that a character can or can't do on purpose. Things just are. If the character can jump it... great. If not, then not. Whatever. All that and the player can determine it all on their own without Mother-Maying-I me. And, best of...Hitdice2012-06-08T21:21:19ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)Arnwynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1162012-06-08T21:06:34Z2012-06-08T21:06:34Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">thejeff wrote:</div><blockquote>Does that really make a big difference?</blockquote><p>Turns out... yes. (For a number of people.)
<p>But this idea of making a "chasm you can't jump" on purpose is a little alien to me. As a DM, I just 'make a chasm'. I'm not concerned about making things that a character can or can't do on purpose. Things just <i>are</i>. If the character can jump it... great. If not, then not. Whatever. All that and the player can determine it all on their own without Mother-Maying-I me. And, best of all - it's always consistent (a major flaw on the human DM side, regardless of certain people's protests... because if it is consistent, then you've suddenly got a rule. Done and done).</p>
<p>I can understand why some people don't like the above... but that's not where my interest lies. Consistency, reliability, and predictability are near the top in my book.</p>thejeff wrote:Does that really make a big difference?
Turns out... yes. (For a number of people.) But this idea of making a "chasm you can't jump" on purpose is a little alien to me. As a DM, I just 'make a chasm'. I'm not concerned about making things that a character can or can't do on purpose. Things just are. If the character can jump it... great. If not, then not. Whatever. All that and the player can determine it all on their own without Mother-Maying-I me. And, best of all - it's...Arnwyn2012-06-08T21:06:34ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)Hitdicehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o68i&page=3?5e-and-PF-actually-fantastic-to-have-both#1152012-06-08T20:22:04Z2012-06-08T20:22:04Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">David knott 242 wrote:</div><blockquote><p> One point to keep in mind is that writing game rules is not the primary interest of the Paizo folks — writing adventures is. They only came up with Pathfinder because they had to — they could not work with 4E because the GSL was too restrictive, and they could not work with 3.5 because it was a "dead" game system unless they made it their own — which is exactly what they did. </p>
<p>I think that the only unanswered question is which system(s) Paizo will be writing adventures for a couple of years down the road. I am pretty sure that they will still be supporting Pathfiner at that point, but I am not ready to guess what else they might be supporting. </blockquote><p>Honestly, I'm more curious about what companies like Open Design will be able to do. With 4E they had to choose between PF/D20 or 4E for each adventure/supplement. But I'm hoping with D&D Next they'll be able to create one supplement for both systems.
<p>Nothing against Paizo, but they've made their money on the D20 system and that's what I expect them to stick with. The only way I could see them considering switching systems was if D&D Next organized play out distanced PFS, and PFS players are <i>loyal</i>.</p>David knott 242 wrote:One point to keep in mind is that writing game rules is not the primary interest of the Paizo folks -- writing adventures is. They only came up with Pathfinder because they had to -- they could not work with 4E because the GSL was too restrictive, and they could not work with 3.5 because it was a "dead" game system unless they made it their own -- which is exactly what they did.
I think that the only unanswered question is which system(s) Paizo will be writing...Hitdice2012-06-08T20:22:04Z