Search Posts
Personally, for the sake of people playing characters with spells, I'd like to see some rolls. I think making the PC roll to see if their spell hits is much more proactive and fun than having the DM roll a monster's save for them, determining the effectiveness of it. Just a thought.
Thanks Mok! I was not aware of either of these. I'll definitely have a look. As I said previously, I love the Pathfinder system, but in keeping with the aim of this thread, I'd like to see a 2nd ed go kinda in the Saga direction. Thanks again!
From what I could ascertain, Saga was a test of the system that worked a charm, was widely praised, and then completely thrown out in the creation of 4th, which feels bizarrely feels like playing the World of Warcraft MMO. Anyway, I'm not sure that Saga was OGL like the other stuff used to be, so they might be hard pressed to mine it for rule changes, etc. As an aside (and not trying to start a different conversation) but I think if 4th ed D&D had gone down the path that Saga so effectively laid out, then it wouldn't have been such a disappointment to so many folks (myself included). I'm happy with the current edition, to be honest. I think the inclusion of all the stuff we know and love, and the effort they put in to make it work effectively, makes it a great product.
Irv, I think you might be mistakenly referring to a perfect product when you say "finished". All the products that come out are finished. Some of them might need some rules tweaks and the like, but they have been completed. Anyway, my main reason for posting was to agree with Kthulhu - less rules heavy is ok. I think to date (and I'm sure to cop flak for this statement) that the best d20 ruleset was the Star Wars Saga edition rules. It streamlined the rules, and skills and the ways they operated, and basically sped up gameplay. And let's face it - the main aim of a ruleset is to enable gameplay and to structure it but without interfering in the process of play (by which I mean having to pause mid combat to check things continually). I'd like to see some similar paring down of the ruleset done in Pathfinder 2.0, just to make the game progress a little smoother.
I am continually thankful for the good sense that prevails on these boards. Despite the continued use of the word "Christian" in his posts, these comments haven't deteriorated into a slagging match about his *faith* (I hesitate to use that term because it's kinda vague whether there's a coherent belief system in there...) As an aside, I'm and English teacher (although currently doing Masters in creative writing) and I've written essays on passages of James Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake" which make more sense than what this dude has written. LOL.
Thanks guys, I saw this and went and added an Inner Sea Primer to my subscription this month. I'm keen on the upcoming Campaign Guide, but I wanted something that would help a new group ease into the setting. While I love massive tomes that you can bludgeon a cow to death with, plonking the 350-page Campaign guide on the table next to the Core Rulebook would probably send my prospective players (and indeed most sane people) running in fright. :P The primer looks to be just the ticket. Cheers Are and uriel222. Edit to add Are to thanks.
Personally I think this is a great idea. Especially at the beginning of an AP, the outline is an invaluable tool in helping me guide my players in character creation so that they will be able to have an excellent experience throughout the campaign. Even if the extra 2 pages became a summarised and condensed version of each individual book, rather than the overall path, that would be fantastic. While I do have a soft spot for the beleaguered iconics, I applaud the fact that you guys have listened to the community and put the space towards something that will definitely see use. Thanks for the brilliant work Paizo - keep it up! ;)
Hi all, I hope that I've not put this in the wrong part of the forum, if I have, feel free to light up the flamers and burn. I have a mate in Sydney who frequents the messageboards and the chat here, and, in response to my bemoaning the lack of a gaming group, mentioned that he'd seen a couple of people on here from the Newcastle area who were interested in getting together to game. If so, please reply! Blake.
I actually did get in contact with you guys a while ago regarding the Pathfinder Developer job, but I didn't end up applying. I live in Australia (so that's one downside) but I also found the basic salary offering to be pretty small by comparison to entry level jobs I can get with my qualifications over here. Shame, really, 'cause I admire the Paizo team's ethos and I would've loved to get on board with the development of the best RPG in the market!
Hi, I hail from Maitland (a little way from Newcastle), and was wondering if this group got up and running, and if so, whether you were still looking for players. I was an avid gamer a couple of years ago, however, uni and work got the better of things, and so my hobby fell by the wayside. Now that I've finished my degree and am doing Honours in creative writing come the new year, my uni workload has decreased somewhat, and I'm looking at getting back into gaming a bit. Have had a fair bit of DM experience at a local gaming store (since shut down), and would be more than happy to run one-shot games etc if there is already a long-term game underway. Regards, Blake.
As a general rule, in games with my group, sexuality is something that is implied, or else dealt with through a kind of British-sitcom double-entendre style. The general tack we take is an assumption that the handsome, rogueish members of the party "do 'it' on their own time". That said, we once had a Bard character play in a game who took the Perform skill, with specialiasation "In Bed", which had us in stitches for some time. He essentially was a songwriting, womanising con-man, and the player enacted his outrageous and flirtatious antics with style and aplomb. That said, it comes down to group mechanics entirely. I have a feeling that all-male gaming groups probably lean a bit more towards some bedroom based humour than those gaming groups with females present... That's been my experience, anyway.
Actually, one more point, I was re-reading the last few posts, and I saw something that caught my eye. Something about the mechanics not being more important than the story. Now, I don't want to sound self-righteous, or stupid, but what I can't understand how in a rulebook, a book that provides mechanics, the story is more important. The story is more important at the table, more important in planning a character, and in playing, but in a mechanics book, I have to think that the mechanics are most important. The mechanics must make the story playable, and the reason I don't like 4th ed is that it doesn't give mechanics for the story to work with. It's all combat. The story hangs upon the use of the mechanics. Great games are often ruined by poor mechanical understanding; not knowing what to do, when...
I heartily agree with the opening remarks. People who say that "We can simply houserule things that we don't like, or that are broken" are missing the point. If you purchased a new car, shiny, flashy and all that, and it broke down before it reached the corner, you're reaction would not be "That's alright, I'll just fix it..." Expect a good system that doesn't require houserules. That's our right as consumers - to purchase an operable product. I personally would like to pick up a game and be able to play it as it's written, from the book, with no ignoring of stupid pointless rules, or things that make arguments. No banning classes because they are unbalanced. This is why Pathfinder kicks some serious butt. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING CAN BE FIXED DOES NOT MEAN IT ISN'T BROKEN. Paizo offers us the chance to say what we had to houserule, and why. Tell them what is wrong, so they can fix it. That's the point. Thus endeth the lesson.
I must agree with Fake Healer. The more books added, the longer the game took to get through basic things like combat (which becomes needlessly complicated unless the players are all very organised - a rare event). That said, what kind of creative license do you want? If you want to be able to bend the rules to pull off Final Fantasy and Transporter's lovechild at level 3, then I can see the DMs problem. What is he stopping you from doing? Creative license can be taken quite happily within the contraints of the rules, provided you know them well enough.
Thank you. I continually fail to see how people think that anyone who likes 4th ed is a retard or a 'd%#!%%%'. I am really enjoying Pathfinder alpha, but I am also enjoying 4th ed. Granted, it is more simplistic, but that does not mean it is for dumb people. A lot of d20 players argue constantly that World of Darkness' StoryTeller system is inferior because it lacks complexity. Lack of complexity means very little in terms of fun, or intelligence. I like to think that I am a fairly intelligent person (I am doing a double degree, soon to be followed by my honours year) and I do not believe that because one system is different to what you like it is inferior. As I pointed out in vain before (the voice of reason will win one day) everyone likes different stuff. Some amazing folks can even like more than one thing. It's kinda like you have one lover, I have a harem - I win. People can enjoy lots of things, it's magical. I will put it simply so that some people can grasp: I like Pathfinder and 4th Ed. Not everyone who likes 4th Ed is a retard. Likewise, not everyone who likes Pathfinder is a genius or a god. People, grow up, stop coating your books in whatever or using them as doorstops. The jokes are old after a single week. Let them die. I came to this forum hoping to see people who were a little open minded, evidently, there are morons everywhere. *sigh*
EDIT - I love Mactaka. And I agree with everything said there. I cannot understand how people are saying things like "I just bought 4th ed and am regretting it." It has been out a week. Less than, in fact. So how can people say its brilliant! or its crap! I don't get it. Personally, I bought 4th ed, and from what I have read, it is simpler, quicker, and easier to run and play. I have not gamed with it yet. I am hopeful though, that the game will be smooth in action, and I think it will be. At the very least, I am going to give it a few sessions of playing before making the final call. I cannot fathom that people look over a ruleset (especially if they have paid for it) and decide it's not worth their time before they play it at least a few times. Makes no sense to me. Give it a shot. A lot of people are up in arms about 4th ed 'not being D&D'. What does that even mean? The rules are not what defines D&D, its the players. Certainly core mechanics are there, but overall the experience belongs to the players. All that said, I still love 3.5, and all its pointless complexity. There are bits that are needlessly hard and unfathomable, but I love it anyway. Not everyone likes both. Some people do, or they at least see the potential in both (nicknamed 'The Enlightened'). Everyone likes a different game. Some groups still play 2nd Ed (I know, go figure) but at the end of the day that is their choice. There is precious little point in debating the differences, mechanical or otherwise between two totally separate versions of THE SAME GAME. To me, the old jail-saying "Do your own time" has always related well to RPGS, in that you should "play your own game". We all like different things, so let's acknowledge that and move on. As an aside, when I am looking over the Pathfinder system in a few days time (when I am done with my last assigment this semester, yay!) I will be looking at ITS mechanics, not how they compare to something else, but how they synergise to make a great, playable game (from a quick glance, it looks tops, and I will buy it either way). Blakeus.
Thank you all. As to Duncan, I have been following the debate over at the Wizards forums, and am a long-time forum go-er. I expect flaming merely for saying "Hi" on a forum these days, seems that idiots often get the run of the place, and the decent contributors fade away. That said, having been trawling a litte, I am impressed with these forums, and I look fowards to discussing decently with clever people.
Let me introduce myself for the first time to these boards, I am Blakeus, and I have been roleplaying for 5 years (there abouts). In that time, I have collected an obscene amount of RPG books, and my bookshelves groan cantankerously under the strain (as does my wallet on occasion...). So having said that, I preodered 4th edition D&D a fortnight ago, and it had the decency to arrive at my doorstep 2 days before release. Here it goes: Having read a fair chunk of 4th ed, and having had a brief look at all the bits (and a more detailed look at others), I have come to the following conclusions: 1. It is not a bad game. In fact, the rules take away a whole load of stuff that I really did not like in previous editions. 2. It is a different game than previous editions. 4th ed is streamlined. This makes it easy to play, and easy to run, the set out of the books (especially with powers) makes it easy for characters in combat to find what they need. 3. It is encouraging new players in. By its similarity in mechanics to streamlined computer games, 4th ed means that this demography is more inclined to try it out. This is a good thing, as more gamers = more gaming stuff = hurrah! 4. It is easier for a DM now. To DM 4th edition is a much easier job than previous editions. The DMG gives you a whole host of charts making it easy to calculate damages and DCs at a very rapid rate. The new MM and way encounters are built (not using Challenge Rating - which NEVER worked EVER) by 'purchasing' monsters is inspired. 5. It is pretty. 4th ed looks nice, and is easy to read. I have no qualms in the looks department. 6. I like what they have done with spells. Making wizards and warlocks roll attacks is better than the gribblies rolling saves. It makes all players more PROactive, which is a great way to keep them coming back for more. 7. People rant on about the lack of roleplay stuff, but I personally see little difference between the 3.5 PH and the 4.0 PH. Honestly, there was never massive amounts of background material in the PH, it was, and IS a rules guide, that deals primarily with the RESOLUTION of ENCOUNTERS. This is always what is needed - roleplay comes from the group and their ability to bring the tale to life. 8. Alignment is nothing to whinge about. People are up in arms because a chart of 9 choices went to 5. Dear me. And you know what the beef is? Apparently - get this - 5 choices are not enough to adequately show the nuances of morality. Oh, right, so... 9 is? Get real folks. It's an abstracted system. 9. On the whole, it fixes more issues than it creates. People are mostly crying over something that by and large they have not read properly, or haven't seen in action on the table. There are a few issues, sure, but at the end of the day, you have to admit that the system is a more streamlined system for resolving what happens. 10. Is 4th ed. Is good. So after all this defense of 4th ed, you might ask, why are you here, looking at Pathfinder? Well, to be honest, I am excited about both. I just fell across this all today, and I am really very excited. See, here's why. I am a nostalgic person by nature, and I quite like 3.0 and 3.5. I played my first and best D&D there. I am looking fowards to playing and running 4th ed, and giving it a work out, which I believe it will hold up under. I am still a lover of 3.5 and 3.0 mainly because I like some of that useless complexity, to be honest. A lot of the stuff was pointless, and did not add anything (stripped away in 4.0) and yet it was endearing. Hence, I am here, finding myself maybe a little TOO excited for August this year, and moreso for August NEXT year. Face it, I'm an RPG whore. I own about 30 settings, representing roughly 18 systems (I classify all 3.0 and 3.5 and their derivatives as 1 system). I like RPGs, I buy them, read them, and dream of one day someone adding all the best bits together... C'mon Paizo, be the one! PS - I will be poring over the Alpha 3 release in the next few days, looking for inconsistencies. Hoping I find stuff to make right, Yours Truly, Blakeus. |
