![]()
![]()
![]() Kevin Mack wrote:
Yes, that's me. The book is just a private work for my gaming group though - printed on demand - so there are no public copies, sorry. ![]()
![]() Pax Veritas wrote: As a player, I agree. I don't want to keep running like a scene from the fugitive, week after week. I want things mixed up. And a lot of the challenges that I like best are the ones that I choose to go after/,. My PCs often fear for their lives. But I do not need to fear for my PCs to roleplay their fear of death. I don't have them pull suicidal stuff, or act as if they knew they'd not die just because I know they won't. ![]()
![]() I run a heavily modified FR setting: First I cut way down on magic items. I go for a world with few (but also often powerful) magic items, where all magic items have a history. No magic shops in every town. No wizards advertising for custom items. No temples selling potions to everyone, or even giving bulk discounts. Most people use either mundane gear, masterwork items, or buff themselves and allies with spells. The red wizards make a fortune (and have a lot of influence) because they sell scrolls and potions to everyone, unlike just about everyone else. Second, less treasure. There are no orc tribes possessing tons of gold, not bandits amassing a fortune just ripe for the picking. Not many tombs filled with gold. People pay less for "adventuring services" as well. Having 1000 gold from pure loot at level 10 is pretty good for an adventurer, but noble titles, monopolies, lands, logging rights, and secure trade routes are where the real money - and power - is gotten from, and any high-level adventurer knows it, and strives for that if they want to get ahead. Less spellcasters as a whole. There are no dozens of high-level wizards tending bars. No legions of high-level clerics polishing idols and statues in every temple. I don't always use the stats from the FRCS for the existing high level spellcasters, and usually do not define their levels. Elminster is a sage, pretty sure a capable wizard, but nothing past that is known for sure. The tales always get exagerated anyway. As long as no one needs him to cast Elminster can be a level 5 wizard for all I care. Certain spells are banned, others are almost nonexistent. Teleport and Teleport without error and all the instant relocation spells with a greater range than Dimension Door are only available to NPC-mages that take a prestige class like the wayfarer from T&B, but without spell progression. People in need of a fast transport can either look for such a mage - and hope they have enough money or services to compensate his time should they arrive at convincing him to aid them - or they can look for ancient, semi-reliable portals scattered among ruins and the like.
The societies of the realms are a lot more grim than the FRCS suggests. Peasants don't live a good life, nobility means a lot or all in most countries. The dales are modelled after the medieval swiss, a bunch of rather backward peasants good at fighting, sought after as mercenaries. Cormyr is a centralized monarchy modelled after France. South of Baldur's Gate and Cormyr slavery is the norm. Death or enslavement is a common punishment for many crimes in almost all civilized countries, and the laws are not equal - nobles and the wealthy are favored, openly in most locations. True good states are very rare - most leaders are neutral, having to compromise their morals for politics. The true power, money, lies with the (noble) landholders, or with merchant companies or houses, not with some eccentric mage living in an out of the way tower. Racism and to a lesser degree sexism run rampant. Elves have no second wind, they are a people rooted in traditions, often unable to cope with the rapidly advancing humans. Elven magic is on the verge of becoming outdated compared to human-driven magic research. In some countries, namely Halrua, the magic knowledge available to humans has mainly surpassed elven traditions due to 3000 years of research driven by humans' zeal for progress. Elves generally look down on humans, but with far less reason than 1000 or even 200 years before. Stuck between the chaotic, carefree attitude of eternal children, and the stiffling traditions of long-lived beings that stiffles progress they have not much to look forward to. The elven items - most very old - are more graceful and more beautiful than comparable items from human or dwarves, but dwarven items, especially metal, are clearly better, of higher quality. Dwarves are also a people whose time is past. The Thunder Twin event never happened, dwarven numbers keep declining. They have kept up, however, with progress in metalworking and mining, and are still the best at their craft. Halflings are basically as they are presented, but not too common. Gnomes are rare. There is no odd tinker gnome in every city. One campaign is set in Mulhorand/Unther, which I modified even further. Both countries are structured after egypt, and are almost twin cultures.
Historically, many events have not happened yet, or will not happen at all. King Azoun still lives, and might go on to live depending on the players. Shade has not (yet) appeared. The retreat is still going on. I am sure I forgot something, but the gist of it should be clear. ![]()
![]() Arcmagik wrote: You keep saying that. But since I used the DMG and your math links to do the inaccuracy of the "hard math" argument and didn't include a SINGLE house rule then it appears that yes, I did cover it and it was real. You are wrong, but don't worry I have no illusions that you will ever admit it in your state of divorced reality. Sure sure, keep thinking that. What's the color of the sky on the planet you're living on? ![]()
![]() Arcmagik wrote:
You think you covered this. Doesn't make it real. Fact is that the rules for SCs do not work as intended. If you can add house rules to them and generally ignore the numbers that's not the same as using them. And it's also a fact that the SC rules obviously were never playtested. Which kind of shows the importance anything but combat had in the developping process. ![]()
![]() Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Do you really think that pulling 3E material did anything to delay piracy of 4E material? ![]()
![]() Stefan Hill wrote:
A reader for electronic books from Amazon. ![]()
![]() Stefan Hill wrote:
Not putting out new PDFs of new books might have had an impact, or might not have. But pulling old PDFs of 3E like Complete Arcane did not, in any way, prevent piracy of new 4E books. Anyone who claims that is wrong. ![]()
![]() Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
And what's the name for a skill that doesn't get a -5 mod? "more than viable"? And how many social skill challenges do you think should turn harder for using diplomacy? ![]()
![]() Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
The reality is that if you house rule SCs enough you'll end up at 3E skill use style. Calling that "using the SCs as intended" is more than a bit stretching the truth. ![]()
![]() Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
If players find a plausible way to use a skill, they can do it in a SC. Even if the DM is strict in how to judge this, Diplomacy can cover just about every social challenge. That doesn't really leave much out that a few more skills can't cover. Not to mention that the 4E rules are made for parties of 5 characters. ![]()
![]() Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
I am 100% sure that pulling the old (and already pirated) PDFs did not have any effect on the time pirates have to spend to pirate new PDFs. Stopping the release of new PDFs might affect that, but thatr's, as others are so fond of pointing out, just speculation. ![]()
![]() Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
I can. Most of the "small core" bought 10 or 20 books each of FR. Even if they get 10 times as many new fans - which I do not believe - selling 1 or 2 books each to everyone would barely make up for the loss. ![]()
![]() There's a link to the SC math, and then there's a link to a more "pointed" analysis of the Skill Challenge system. The point is that I'd expect a paid Dev to get his math right at the very least in the errata so players don't need to make house rules just to make the system work as intended. A system is not turned into a good system just because with enough house rules, gentleman's agreements and plain "Not using this as a DM" tweaking you can make it work. If you house rule the Skill Challenge enough you can't tell the difference from a house ruled 3E skill system. ![]()
![]() WormysQueue wrote: I've seen the same discussion coming up already regarding Golarion. People fearing that Paizo's product plan will eventually lead to a "realmification" of Golarion because the world keeps getting detailed in the modules, the adventure paths, the Chronicles and the Companions. Instead of simply ignoring the offered options (what they easily could do) they try to convince the designers to stop detailing the World. And those people won't amount to anything, ever. If you cannot ignore parts of a setting you don't want to use, if you cannot tell players that, if you cannot stand up for yourself then you'll never be a good DM. (There are other qualities also needed, of course.) The 4E FRCS was made for the wrong reasons, to appeal to the wrong people. A simple page or two with DM advice about the Realms would have worked much better. Rules are the same, of course. If a DM can't handle the realms he'll not be able to handle the splatbook glut either. ![]()
![]() Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Just be mature and ignore it. If you don't start it we can go on discuss the end of the FR as we knew them. I am still running my campaign in the FR, 15 years or so by now. Not gonna give it all up for a setting made for people unwilling to either invest some time reading up, or unable to tell canon "scholars" that they would be running their own FR. That's what it boils down to: A setting made for DMs who need the big "official" stick to ward off (mostly hypothetical) "FR fanatic players" who know more about the setting than the DM. Not that people who needed a fresh wipe to start running in a setting will amount to anything anyway, they'll get dragged down by the rules lawyers instead since I don't see them reading up on rules either. ![]()
![]() Joshua J. Frost wrote:
An ignore function would really, really be helpful in keeping the boards more civil. Please implement it as soon as possible. ![]()
![]() bugleyman wrote:
I've met too many criminals to believe that every act can be adequately explained by stupidity. In this case WotC had ample time and opportunity to correct a mistake, but didn't so, so I can't give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a mistake. ![]()
![]() bugleyman wrote:
The alternative would be stupidity on WotC's part of a magnitude that's simply implausible for a corporation made up (at least partially) of reasonably intelligent people with some internet experience. No, I do not believe WotC are that stupid. If I believed they were that stupid I certainly wouldn't touch anything they publish with a ten-foot pole. That would be like trying to drive a car built by someone unable to figure out how to open a door. ![]()
![]() pres man wrote: So you are not challenging their claim with respect to new material, just with respect to older material? So they may actually be at least partially honest when saying that piracy did effect the decision (pull ALL the pdfs)? No. Pulling the PDFs already available had nothing to do with piracy since those were pirated and in circulation already. Refusing to publish PDFs of future 4E books might have been motivated by piracy concerns, as well as being a way to push the DDI. ![]()
![]() pres man wrote:
No, my point is that after something was already pirated, removing it makes no sense anymore. Especially not if by removing you stop getting any revenue from it since you're not selling it in any form anymore. I don't really care about the new PDFs they did not publish, I care about the older PDFs that were already published. Removing the older PDFs did nothing to battle piracy, they were already in circulation. Quite the opposite in fact, sicne by not offering legal versions of them anymore it probably drove up piracy of them. Get it now? ![]()
![]() Celestial Healer wrote:
The lies about the reasons for the move are the unethical part. Dishonesty itself is unethical. I guess "We don't want to sell old PDFs anymore to force everyone to buy 4E" doesn't sound as good. And the "We were getting pirated, so we had to pull all PDFs to avoid more losses" is a lie as well - the PDF sales were the only form WotC sent older editions in, they went from selling a certain number of PDFs and hypothetical losses to piracy to no sales at all. Pulling the 4E PDFs is one thing - they sell that IP in hardcover and DDI form - but pulling the 3E and older material is another thing. ![]()
![]() pres man wrote:
"After it was pirated we'll stop piracy by removing legal access to it" strikes you as a plausible reason? Can I interest you in a joint-venture in Nigeria?Arcmagik wrote: It is pointless. Don't try. I ripped his argument about broken SC up and he refused to believe and even tried to paint me in a bad light. Don't know what the light was again since I can't be bothered to look it up. You didn't rip up anything. If you really believe you can defend the Skill Challenges head over here. ![]()
![]() Freehold DM wrote:
You didn't have to do all that reading. Most DMs likely never used all that material, nor felt they had to. It was an option, which was removed. And the inexpereinced GMs won't have material to fall back on, to felsh out stuff they cannot do themselves. Economically, driving away people who bought all material coming out for the FR in order to have a chance at attracting people who don't like to read doesn't strike me as a sensible move if one plans to keep selling lots of books. Given my spending habits I bought more FR books than ten "new DMs" who only buy 1 or two books each put together - and I doubt I am an exception. ![]()
![]() Miphon wrote:
Of course I repsect the fact that other people have other opinions - but I do not have to respect their opinion, especially not if it amounts to "oh, well, as long as we do not have proof there really could be a nigerian heiress in need of $ 25'000 to free up her fortune she wants to share with me, so anyone who calls me a fool for sending her money is being mean to me and doesn't respect my opinion". In other words: It does matter what you believe. ![]()
![]() Sebastian wrote: My dog obviously thinks you're both stupid. I'm not saying you're stupid, I'm just saying that's what my dog thinks. Hopefully, you're not one of those idiots who needs to put people in drawers and twist my statement to make it seem like I'm saying that I think you're stupid (and, reading my statement in that way, would probably make you stupid, so I really don't think you should do that). It's just my guess as to what my dog thinks about you. Well, if you truly believe WotC was really that dumb and had not other reasons for pulling the PDFs than piracy, and still buy their stuff then that would make you either a fool, or someone who follows a fool. And who would be the bigger fool of those two is another question. But then I don't assume stupidity where malice is more plausible. ![]()
![]() 18DELTA wrote:
The argument "Less is more" is stupid anyway. Between the trash novels and DDI's FR crumbs, and possible more Computer Games, the setting they are calling the Forgotten Realms sooner or later will again provide a bareer of entry for new DMs unwilling to read up and unable to ignore those details. ![]()
![]() Miphon wrote:
Yes. If they really were that dumb they'd have corrected their mistake by now, after all the negative PR this generated. The fact that they did not means they have other reasons. Miphon wrote:
What reason would and could there be for the removal of the old PDFs, other than "Let's force people to buy 4E by removing alternatives"? ![]()
![]() Stefan Hill wrote:
WotC_Trevor posted this: "Hey all. I wanted to step in and shine a mote of light on the subject. First off, this cesation of PDF sales has absolutely nothing to do with the Internet Sales Policy. I know it's the 6th of April and I can definitely see how the two would appear linked, but the truth is, this is a completely seperate matter. Unfortunately, due to recent findings of illegal copying and online distribution (piracy) of our products, Wizards of the Coast has decided to cease the sales of online PDFs. We are exploring other options for digitial distribution of our content and as soon as we have any more information I'll get it to you." ![]()
![]() Miphon wrote: Whether or not I believe WotC pulled their old PDFs for piracy reasons isn't the issue, but insulting part of the community here (even if done subtly) just isn't cool. I am not saying everyone who likes 4E is a fool - I am saying WotC probably thinks their customers are fools or they'd not have tried to feed them their stupid "reasons" for pulling 3.X PDFs. That's a fine difference. I do say that anyone who believes WotC's reasons for pulling the PDFs is gullible, so if you believe them you're gullible. If you defend them using the stated reasons you're either gullible or dishonest. ![]()
![]() Miphon wrote:
If anyone believes that WotC pulled the old PDFs for piracy reasons, then they are so gullible that I assume they'll fall for any attempt to con them, and will lose their last shirt to the next e-mail scam. ![]()
![]() pres man wrote: Personally I believe in mutual self-interest. A company makes products I want, even if they kick puppies down the streets, I will purchase their products. A company doesn't make products I want, then I won't purchase their products, no matter how many puppies they adopt. Kicking puppies is a crime. Contrary to some, I would not support criminals, or make deals with them. If a company treats me like an idiot - feeding me hare-brained lies about the reasons they pull PDFs from the market, and expecting me to believe them - that's enough for me to stop buying from them since at the very least hints strongly at what kind of mental capacity they expect in their target audience. ![]()
![]() Gorbacz wrote:
Right on both counts. And 3.5 gets ripped to shreds as well. ![]()
![]() pres man wrote: I hate that company so much, because they won't let me give more money to them! Damn them! By your logic discrimination (refusing to sell something to a specific ethnicity or gender) is no biggie - you just do not let them give money to you. It's, of course, not the same, but yes, knowing WotC could sell me the pdfs I want, but refuses to do so for no logical reason other than to promote a game system I don't like, is reason enough to dislike them. ![]()
![]() Matthew Morris wrote:
Who is the bigger fool, the fool, or the one who follows him? I'd not call it hatred of all things hasbro, but I am not about to trust that company anymore, and given how stupid they acted with marketing (pdf pulled, anti-3E propaganda) and with rules (not playtested SC rules, failed fix in errata) I don't put much faith in anything else they produce. ![]()
![]() People who did not know FR and hated it's history made a setting for people who did not know FR and hated it's history. All so they could keep the name of the setting. Pathetic, and maybe not even commercially sucessful if a lot of the former fans who bought all books of the FR stopped buying new material.
|