If this sees publication, I BEG that the concept of the wizard/familiar fusions be handled gingerly, and not revealed too early or offhandedly. Don't even say "the wizards and their familiars entered the ship" (though that's a great line for the pitch, it would make things too obvious in the adventure. Familiars are so often invisible accessories that it draws attention when you mention them).
I think it's a really great head-scratcher because the players have a fair shot at making sense of it. A wizard that's a rat, a wizard that's an owl, a wizard that's a frog... EVERYONE has read the familiar list in the core rules or PHB. If they make the connection then it demands speculation, makes them think, makes them discuss and imagine, rather than just letting their eyes glaze over as they wait for the reveal. Awesome. And even if they don't make the connection, then the connection is still there, tickling their imaginations the whole time. Even more awesome.
Travelers going into space and coming back warped or twisted is a genre convention (for a lot of good reasons!), and there's something deliciously Lovecraftian in that moment when the dots connect and the light goes on and the hero suddenly understands the madness that he is looking upon.
(Cue 500-word ramble concerning the structure of Lovecraft's pros. Seriously, it may seem minor or obvious from the synopsis, but I think Mike did something really cool here).
Do the rules at any point address what happens when two people are on one horse, in or out of combat?
I think I've just used the squeezing rules (-4 attack/AC) in combat and had it tire the horse faster out of combat. But at a glance I can't find anything in the rules to imply it's even possible.
Good mechanics have flavor too. Fluff is something that JUST has flavor (it might be delicious, but there's no crunch to be found).
Crunch is the pecan pie. Fluff is the dollop of whipped cream on top. Some people like more, some people like less, and some people will just brush it right off and eat the crunchy part.
It could be argued that all magic items in Relics&Rituals were artifacts anyway (they didn't even have prices, right?), and that for artifacts backstory is more traditional. Also, yea, Scarred Lands setting.
And the fact is any GM can take any of the awesome items that have made it into RPGS and give them interesting stories in his or her own game. Storytelling is cool, it just isn't your task for this round.
If you still feel any doubt, I'd try actually typing out an observation of everything that your item and the original have in common, then read what's in front of you with fresh eyes (keeping in mind everything you've heard here from judges and fans). It sounds silly but I find that sort of exercise can be quite clarifying.
There is not a single wondrous item in any published core book that has that kind of self-indulgent writing and backstory in it.
Perhaps not for Pathfinder, but it wasn't that uncommon in official 3e products. Typically they were setting-specific items, though, or else the name dropped was a useful reference to something else in the same book (not just a dangling name from some dude's homebrew).
That in no way makes it appropriate or excusable here, of course. But I really like how it was done in Ghostwalk, for example, or the BoVD, or the odd Forgotten Realms splat.
I agree that a lot of what makes an organization good crosses over; indeed, if you can use it on either side of the screen, that itself should tell you your idea has a certain depth (example: every single Pathfinder Society faction).
Intended use dictates presentation, though, and with so few words to work with presentation is a huge deal. For a protagonists' organization, you'll want to focus on adventure hooks and campaign models within the organization, while an antagonists' organization should focus more on hooks and opportunities created by the organization's behavior.
Plus they're just used differently. I think it's a lot like the distinction between monster design and class/race design; a PC organization is likely to be a constant for the whole campaign, while a non-PC one might feature prominently in only a single adventure. And what is good for one adventure is not necessarily good for an entire campaign.
I'm most curious as to whether the organization ought to be geared towards PCs. I think that what makes a bad player character organization is very different from what makes a bad NPC/villain organization.
it seems to introduce a new precedent for spell areas:
Quote:
Haunting Choir
School necromancy [mind-affecting, pain]; Level bard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Area30-ft.-radius emanation Duration concentration + 2 rounds
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes
You create a spectral choir and conduct its tortured, ghostly moans, deluding listeners into believing they are suffering the torments of the dead. The transparent singers occupy a 10-foot cube, but they are intangible and do not interfere with creatures in any physical way, nor can they be attacked. Creatures within 30 feet of the choir experience wracking pain that causes them to take a –2 penalty on attack rolls, skill checks, and ability checks.
Isn`t there a discrepancy between this spell and how area spells usually work, e.g. Antimagic Field which centers it`s radius emanantion on an intersection? In this case, it justs says 30-ft. radius emanation in the Area line, but in the Description we learn there is a 10x10 area ocupied by the `choir` and anybody WITHIN 10` feat of the choir, i.e. FROM IT`S BORDERS, is affected, which is 5` further than if we simply relied on the Area line. Is this a problem?
Editing fail.
The spell clearly says that it creates a ghostly choir. The choir occupies space in a 10ft. cube. Their singing is an emanation effect, which centers on the choir itself at a distance of 30 feet.
You mean, it centers on the central intersection of the choir?
I don't think that's clear from the text (though if it were, then yes, the actual choir's area would be a superficial detail and this would be nothing out of the ordinary.
And on that note, can a Palidin use "Corrupting Touch" on a foe and treat that foe as an evil outsider?
I think that only evil outsiders are evil outsiders, and that causing a creature to detect as an evil outsider wouldn't cause it to function as one in other respects. Additionally, I think a lot of DMs would houserule this ability to have the [evil] descriptor (even though it isn't a spell and doesn't have a field for descriptors).
That's an awesome idea, though, especially for any of those LN, Cuthbert-esque "too righteous for my own [Good]" paladin variants.
IMHO, using the alignment rules to explore the finer points of narrative morality is like trying to use a really poorly conceived analogy to describe an extremely nuanced topic.
I don't remember using poison on others being evil in 3.0 and 3.5. Also, then all the poisonous vermin and poisonous animals would not be neutral, but evil, because they use poison.
Book of Exalted Deeds called poisons out specifically as evil. Same with diseases.
It also introduced "ravages" and "afflictions", which are JUST Like poisons and diseases except that they can be used by good characters.
Personally, I don't feel that BoED was a very good book. Though I do enjoy the Old Testament vibe of a character specialized in the use of 'holy diseases'.
I really do like the fireworks spell, but I wish there wasn't a save. Firstly, because it would be a bit better (without needing other feats or abilities to buff it), and secondly because I think it bogs down games when you're constantly rolling saving throws verses trivial effects (in this case, 1-2 damage and a -1 penalty for just a single round).
It's a decent pick for sorcerers, though, or anyone who can boost fire damage. I only feel it could be more powerful because it looks so hard to use well (i.e it's easy to imagine situations where someone casts it then doesn't get to use it much because they're forced to take move actions; it's a GOOD cost/penalty, and forces the player to work creatively around it, but it is still a penalty).
The other is an untitled D&D clone that amplifys on the 20 level race concept that was discarded for 4e. In this system you choose race, class, astrological sign and prestige class which all have level templates that grant abilities and stat boosts. The character building element comes in combining the tables.
Nice! I've toyed with a lot of similar ideas in various contexts.
Have you done any playtesting?
I like the genre and concept of The Oath, but the Yahtzee dicepool mechanic looks like a drag to me. What works in Yahtzee (a game where the dice are the ENTIRE game) does not necessarily work in RPGs.
I've done a little work on an over-the-top dark fantasy game (built on the framework of Iron Heroes, which is a low magic/high-action OGL game), with lots of Samurai Champloo punk-anachronism. It's pretty half-baked, but I talked about the themes and tone here (with more concrete setting info later) and some of the mechanics here.
I haven't done any real work on it since then; I've built up a small pool of brainstorm docs and playtest notes, and they're a great resource to plunder for other things, but I won't be "finishing' it any time soon.
I sort of whipped together a "new system" over a weekend just because I wanted to run a rules-light dungeon crawl a while back(also, I had some design principles that I wanted to try out, like open-ended magic and strictly-reactive defenses). Of course, there are no rules for designing characters, which is the hard part of designing any system. But I made four characters that were roughly balanced alongside each other and my group had a good time playing them.
I tried to make it so that everything you need to play would be on your character sheet (just like 4e). In fact, I tried to make it so that there was no learning curve, and reading your charsheet taught you everything, but perhaps that's only true for players with D&D experience. Conflict resolution was 1d6+mod (usually a 'skill' stat plus an 'ability' stat), so basically d20 without the d20.
example character:
Sliv, lizardfolk sorcerer
HITPOINTS: 14 ______
ARMOR: 2 (scales) If something hits you, reduce the damage by this much
VIGOR: 5 ______ You can spend 1 vigor to get +1 to any roll in combat, or to use other abilities. You get it back by resting.
ABILITIES CORE SKILLS
Strength 1 Combat: 3 Attack, block, counter-attack
Dexterity 4 Will: 5 Use magic, resist magic
Constitution 2
Intelligence 3
Wisdom 4
Charisma 1
OTHER SKILLS
Alertness: 4 Notice things, avoid ambushes
Athletics: 4 Jump, climb, swim, dodge attacks
Charms: Talk people into things.
Lore: 4 Know stuff
Sabotage: Pick locks, disable traps, break/ruin stuff
Sneak: 4 Hide, do things quietly, cover your trail
ATTACKS:
BITE +7 (Dex + Combat) Chomp!
Damage: 1d4
Hit by 5 or more: Add your strength bonus (+1) to damage.
JAVELIN +6 RANGED (Dex + Combat - 1) A simple throwing spear favored by your people
Max range: 100 feet (-1 penalty for every 20 feet)
Damage: 1d8+1
Hit by 5 or more: target takes -2 to rolls until they pull it out
MOVEMENT:
Speed: 4 squares
CHARGE You can move you speed and then make an attack as a standard action
Cost: 1 vigor
DEFENSES: If someone attacks you, pick one of these to oppose the attack
Passive defense 4 (Dex) If you can't/don't pick any of your defenses, enemies roll against this
SERPENTINE DODGE +8 (Dexterity + Athletics) Mammals can do it, but you do it better
Cost: Free (you can dodge any number of attacks)
Success: Take half damage
Success by 5 or more: Take no damage, and you may use up your next round's move action to slide 1 square
MENACE +7 (same as weapon) If you hit me, I'll hit you!
Cost: Use up your next standard action
Success: You get a free attack against your attacker (after their attack).
Success by 5 or more: Your attack happens first, and their attack deals half damage
OTHER ACTIONS:
REST (Standard action): Regain 2 vigor (You can't get back more than your max)
JUJU SNAKES (Standard action, 2 vigor):
Most of your magic revolves around your three javelins, each of which contains a malicious spirit bound within it. As a standard action you may cause any one of them (including one that is sticking out of an enemy) to spring to sudden life as an evil-looking snake. This transformation lasts for 3 rounds, unless the snake manages to slither into a recently-dead body (this creates a juju zombie, which is a much more sustainable vessel for the spirit). A "slain" snake reverts to the form of a broken javelin, though it can be used again after being ritually mended.
Kabara: Dangerous; more powerful but willful
Poklo: Careful; sly but craven
Borb: Temperamental, idiotic, but basically obedient
You may use similar magic on any wooden object anointed with your blood, allowing evil spirits to possess and transform it, but this is dangerous as you have no special control over "wild" spirits.
CLINGING DARKNESS (Standard action, 2 vigor)
You create a ten-foot radius area that nothing can see through. This area lasts 1 round. In addition, make a ‘darkness’ attack against every creature in the area
DARKNESS +9 (wisdom + will)
Hit: Target takes -2 to all rolls for 1d4 rounds
Hit by 5 or more: Target is completely blinded 1 round (even if it leaves the area)
Am I missing something about Haunting Choir? It looks terribly weak (relative to other 3rd-level bard group buff/debuffs), which is depressing considering how cool it is.
It will stack with dirge of doom.
So will crushing despair and slow.
This is very close to a strictly-weaker version of crushing despair. It doesn't affect saves, doesn't affect damage rolls, and has a duration set by concentration (as opposed to one measured in minutes). The trade-off is that you can affect a larger area and can center it away from yourself; this is an advantage, but not an unambiguous one (it's much easier to avoid friendly fire with cones for instance), and the drawbacks are significant.
Despair is hardly the best 3rd-level bard spell, either; it's just the easiest to compare with. For prepared casters, I'm sure I could think up a situation where this spell would be the best option, but as a spontaneous caster you should never learn this.
(unless, again, there's some advantage I'm missing)
Yes, as a sorcerer fan it's hard for me to see why anyone would be upset about Eldritch Heritage. It stacks with your real bloodline power, so if you really think the 1st-level powers are that great, why not spend another feat and have two?
(Unless you just aren't allowed to retool your character, and are stuck with Skill Focus in the wrong skill. Which would suck for any half-elf.)
Am I missing something about Haunting Choir? It looks terribly weak (relative to other 3rd-level bard group buff/debuffs), which is depressing considering how cool it is.
I don't think that a DM should ever become upset with a player for pointing out a rule. I also don't think a player has any right to demand that a given rule be used, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing it out.
I do think it's mostly the DM's job to avoid clashes of expectations, though. Start the game by disclosing your major houserules, and if your major houserules are too numerous (or you plan on making them up as you go), then start the game by saying so. It's okay to run a game where wizards roll randomly to determine spells known (some player will love that. No, really!), but you can't just spring that on a player after his first adventure. It's not a matter of whether or not you have a "right" to, it's just very bad GMing.
Of course, sometimes you still wont' agree on what makes a good game.. which is just the nature of the beast, really.
'This could happen in any setting' is basically true of most Golarion adventures. And that's a feature, not a flaw.
Golarion is an excellent generic-fantasy-melting-pot setting, but it IS still a generic-fantasy-melting-pot setting, and the entire point of such settings is that you can throw in whatever high-fantasy shenanigans you want and have them fit. The setting serves the adventures, not the other way around.
I agree with most others' praise and criticism on this one, but I don't think it was a bad idea for him to write this as an "event", not tied to any particular place. I think that makes sense and makes the adventure more usable, especially if you take the space normally allocated to 'fleshing out' the location and instead spend that talking about how you can integrate this into any location.
This is a sidetrack from Jerall Toi's adventure proposal (and the "hack and slash" verses "roleplay" debate), though it's something I've wondered for a while.
It seems to me like Pathfinder Modules can more afford to accommodate particular playstyles or niche audiences, at least when compared to the APs or Scenarios, because they aren't part of a series or subscription. DMs are only going to buy them one at a time, and only if they like what they read on the back cover, so I would expect it to be better to have a module that really "grabs" a smaller range of gamers, verses one that merely appeases or is palatable to a wider range of gamers.
Not that an RPGS proposal shouldn't have mass appeal, just that there's less pressure for a stand-alone adventure to please EVERYONE, especially compared to an adventure that's merely one part of a 6-part campaign.
Does this at all reflect the way that Paizo thinks about their modules? What about the way buyers think about them?
I love your opening setup. Love it, love it, love it. Streets litered with war-orphans and the only people feeding them are the church of Asmodeus; ruling them with an iron fist, of course, but that's to be expected. This is my favorite way to use this sort of organization, not merely as cackling cultists, but as a dignified, stabalizing element of society: the most infuriating thing about Asmodeus is the idea that the world needs him.
But, wait, what's this? The children are scorning them? And some kind of peasant boogyman is paying them back for their unkindness? Awesome!!
The way you've framed your 'villain' is really clever. You give us a crappy situation (priests of Asmodeus are jerks, but at least the kids are fed)... then introduce the adventure's 'mystery' element as something opposed to that. That's going to grab PC attention.
Initially, I think many groups will debate long and hard over whether or not to help the evil church, who are after all doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Once you introduce this mysterious 'Lady', who is apparently feeding and protecting the orphans better than the devil-worshipers, I think that most PCs will agree that that's worth looking into (and most players *I* know would want to ally with that force, whatever it is, because it's better than Asmodeus). But no matter how you slice it this is a robust scenario that's going to support some really great roleplaying.
How you frame individual encounters (thoughtfully and open-ended) tends to be very good, but as James Jacobs said, it's a mistake to make the Church of Asmoedus a choke-point for the plot. On the other hand, while you tend to assume that's who the PCs are working for, I actually don't see any point where that's really necessary. In other words, it looks like I could run this mystery just fine even if the PCs shun the church altogether; they'll just have to uncover everything themselves. As a DM, however, I just have to wonder how much I'm going to have to "wing it" there, and how much the adventure is actually going to support me.
The payoff at the end was a little disappointing and a little confusing. Like I said, as a player I'm going to want to know who is feeding the kids all of a sudden, and whether they're a viable alternative to supporting some devil church, and whether he/she/it is allied with the murderer (or one and the same!). Basically it sounds like "The Lady" is a goodguy (or someone I like) and "Kasteron" is possibly a badguy, but as a player I'm worried and intrigued by the fact that the kids are lumping the two of them together.
And in the end, it almost seems too easy. Kasteron is.. a cool monster, but still just a monster. And the face behind "The Lady" is really just a saintly orphan woman (Freia); we have no idea how she's managed to keep the orphans from going hungry, but presumably she'll keep doing so in the future. The PCs meet the lady, kill the monster, and that's that.
I think it's going to be very interesting when Aleric goes after Freia, but that's beyond the scope of this adventure. Which isn't a bad thing. Stand-alone adventures are often integrated into original campaigns, and I think it's awesome when such an adventure can contribute to the campaign as a whole.
I'm not a huge comics fan, but I loved the JLA episode where those two fought. Superman beat Cap, but he still "lost" in the end (the whole thing was a great moment for Lex, which I appreciate).
It's interesting that you've associated moths (or biting, disease-ridden moth larva?) with Ghlaunder; has that been done before in canon?
Derp.
I just realized I was totally thinking of Urgathoa above; I'd forgotten that Golarion has another church of insects and diseases, which is explicitly associated with cocoons (and, even better, with posing as priests of other faiths. Heheh).
For my money, emerging from a cocoon bigger and with wings is a way cooler and more appropriate image, and I'm glad that's the one you submitted. But this is still pretty cool, and in particular I love the idea of using both 'cloaks' in a game, one being a sort of dark reflection or corruption of the other. I also like that this has game effects even when worn as a regular cloak..
The "for every consecutive round' wording isn't very clear; I assume it means that the transformation lasts for ten rounds, as long as you spent ten rounds wearing the cloak. But wearing it for 1 minute isn't much of a limitation (it's still easy to just put it on right before the right), so I would have probably just made that a 1/day power.
It's interesting that you've associated moths (or biting, disease-ridden moth larva?) with Ghlaunder; has that been done before in canon? It's a fun contrast to Desna and makes me think of the two gods more in relation to each other. In my own game, I associated moths with desna moreso than butterflies (she's a god of the night, after all!); IMC when humans use a butterfly as her symbol they're just morphing her imagery to suit their (diurnal) culture.
Anyway, thanks for sharing, it's fun to see this and think about how the other one evolved from it (I think it's customary to put this kind of thing in the first item's thread, but I'm sure it's no big deal).
To the best of my knowledge KQ doesn't do long adventures (outside of Open Design), but I recall seeing at least one "micro adventure" published in Kobold Quarterly (the one where the PCs have to investigate a kenku children's school), which I thought was really neat.
Also, they're always looking for web content; they say that web submissions should be less than 800 words, but in my experience they've been flexible if you query first.
Agreed; he's done some edgy, but he's also shown that that's not all he's good at. The Book of Night without Moon certainly takes risks; it's inventive, evocative, and potentially game-altering. But I think the Knave went in the opposite direction; he's a fantasy trope, he could exist in any faux-medieval setting, but he's really good. The Meditant does something which I wouldn't have thought of but which feels obviously iconic now, and the Black Mirror is really what I would consider quintessential high fantasy.
Honestly, I don't know what to expect from this guy in an adventure pitch, but I'm looking forward to it.
Seriously, if you think that this whole thing is based on an audience already predisposed to hate Wizards, then consider that example. Make another thread about it if you want: ask Pathfinder fans how they would react if, at the announcement of a new edition (however many years down the road), Paizo ran an ad at GenCon which depicted a bunch of players sitting around playing Pathfinder and not having fun, then followed it up with some vague imagery of people having a blast with Pathfinder 2.0.
I'm going to take a guess right now at what the most common response would be: "Paizo wouldn't do that."
Mmm, I wouldn't go about it that way, since the respondents would be primed to examine their reaction ahead of time simply by virtue of being asked the question. A better way to do it would be to produce a very similar (albeit fake) ad, but with Pathfinder 2.0 (or whatever) at the end and let fans watch it (mind you: only fans who had not seen the WotC ad), then ask them how they feel about the ad afterward. I really do wonder if we'd see the idea of the ad being offensive catch on or not.
That aside, your post is my favorite in this thread so far. Well-examined, thorough, and by and large extremely reasonable. Hat's off.
Fair point, fair point; "go make a thread" was probably reaching too far. But I do feel that this would get a negative response no matter who did it, for all the reasons above. And thank you for giving my point of view a fair shake. :)
The question, then, that I'm trying to get people to ask themselves is: Why is it not ridiculous to become offended by an ad campaign that calls its older product bad, given how that offended rage appears to others?
I think that's a good direction to bring the discussion in. For my own part, I said it in my first post on the subject, and I'll say it again: That's how you sell toilet brushes, not how you sell games.
If major series videogames were marketed based on the idea that previous titles in the series were bad, I think that that would be unwise, and would come across as scornful of the franchise's fanbase. If Wizards released a new Magic block, and tried to market it with ads focusing on the flaws of the block that was rotating out, I would consider that to be unwise and scornful of their fanbase. If Paizo announced Pathfinder 2.0, and tried to sell it by implying that Pathfinder was bad, I would consider that to be unwise and scornful of their fanbase.
Seriously, if you think that this whole thing is based on an audience already predisposed to hate Wizards, then consider that example. Make another thread about it if you want: ask Pathfinder fans how they would react if, at the announcement of a new edition (however many years down the road), Paizo ran an ad at GenCon which depicted a bunch of players sitting around playing Pathfinder and not having fun, then followed it up with some vague imagery of people having a blast with Pathfinder 2.0.
I'm going to take a guess right now at what the most common response would be: "Paizo wouldn't do that."
That's how I feel, and the reasons why I feel that way are certainly worth examining. I think a huge part of it is rooted in the very nature of games, of game design, and of the "science of fun": what makes good food is pretty subjective, but in my opinion, it isn't nearly as subjective as what makes a good game. No matter how conservative your new edition is (and 4e was hardly conservative) there are going to be gamers who find merrit in the 'flaws' that you have 'fixed', and so continue to prefer the older edition. The imporant thing to keep in mind is that the people who liked the old game are still fans and potential buyers, unless and until you alienate them, or give the impression that your idea of fun is no longer the same as theirs. Trying to slowly win them over to the new thing is much, much more productive than trying to make them dislike the old thing.
There's another, equally important factor which also ties into the nature of games: you can't destroy an old edition. When Dominos switches to a new crust, a customer's only options are to eat the new crust or to buy their pizza elsewhere. Don't like it? Tough. But if you're hyping up Mario Party 9 and you accidentally offend a fan of Mario Party 8, he doesn't have to buy your new game. He can keep playing the old one. You can't stop him. It doesn't matter how much you try to convince him that the old game is bad and the new one is better, because you can't tell him that his tastes are wrong, and it's frankly stupid for you to try.
And, yes, another factor at play here IS that geeks aren't like other audiences, and that they become more invested in the games they love than in the pizza they eat. You can call them 'ridiculous' or immature or oversensitive or whatever until you're blue in the face, but it is what it is.
Finally, and this is me getting really idealistic, but.. no, I don't think that games are the same as other products, and I don't think the market for them is the same as other markets. Games aren't just an everyday necessity that I pick up at the grocery store. Games are something I love and am invested in. You don't have to grab my attention with cheap salesmanship; you already have my attention because I love your game. All you need to do is level with me. You guys are gamers, I'm a gamer, if you think your new book is totally awesome there's a great chance that I'll agree, so just show me the goods and I'll buy them. Design diaries sell games. Previews and sneak-peaks sell games. Crappy snake-oil pitches don't sell games, and I think the most scornful thing about this add is that somebody at Wizards thought they would.
This add is a cheap informercial pitch made palatable with a candy shell of humor; I just find that to be very trite, and a symptom of a marketing department who don't 'get' or respect their audience. If the subject of the debate were a down-to-earth design blog talking about the exact same topic ("Hey, grappling is kind of a PITA, we're hoping to fix that in 4e"), I think that that would be completely different. Yes, it's still generally wise to focus on positives instead of negatives, but at least there would have been some level of respect for the reader. When I view this add I don't feel like they're leveling with me about a flaw in their game, I just feel like I'm being marketed at. I can't see past the informercial pitch.
The clangor of the swords had died away, the shouting of the slaughter was hushed; silence lay on the red-stained snow. The bleak pale sun that glittered so blindingly from the ice-fields and the snow-covered plains struck sheens of silver from rent corselet and broken blade, where the dead lay as they had fallen.
This is pretty.
Grand Magus wrote:
The nerveless hand yet gripped the broken hilt; helmeted heads back-drawn in the death-throes, tilted red beards and golden beards grimly upward, as if in last invocation to Ymir the frost-giant, god of a warrior-race...
This I had to read a few times before I could parse it correctly.
Personally I think the easiest way to darken up the D&D pantheon is to split Agriculture between Pelor, who as sun god is in charge of planting and growing, and Nerull, who is pretty obviously a dark harvest god and would be infinitely cooler if farmers feared and propitiated him like Tlaloc.
When the battle was over, the henchman was still falling. Entering a hole in the floor, then exiting a hole in the roof, then back through the same floor again as fast as they eye could follow. The sight pulled the adventurers' eyes towards the roof, coaxing them into staring up at the room above them, which was their own room, and had the same room above that... that was disorienting, but not nearly as bad as the man's prolonged shriek, a sound of unresisted panic and abandoned sanity, reverberating in on itself as it echoed through the ghastly acoustics of the impossible chamber. All three cringed as the poor fellow struck the hole's edge, finally carried across the recursive shaft by horizontal momentum. His scream was cut off as some indistinct part of him splattered across the floor at their feet; the rest tumbled back into a quiet freefall.
"It's rather lovely now, actually, the way the blood keeps falling..."
Disturbing is right... she does mention the 'Mother of Monsters' though, so the thread title is more appropriate than I expected.
Also, I'm impressed (if that's the right word) by how well the makeup team was able to make a fit young woman in her underwear completely unattractive.
I think she pretty much rips off Madonna and no Lady Gaga is just ugly anyway. To be honest, I just don't get her popularity... Her (such as it is) music is the same processed, monotone tripe over and over again.
Maybe I'm just getting old:P Each to his own I guess...
I think it's cool that she plays the freak. I don't know if all that springs from her own personal genius* or if she's just playing a part dictated to her by her label (though my impression is that the former is cooler and the latter more realistic), but either way I think it's fun.
As far as music goes, even I think this one is generic, and couldn't listen to all of it. I liked Bad Romance.
*this was meant to be slightly tongue-in-cheek, but I couldn't find the sarcasm font
As an aside, I think it's a little creepy (in a McCarthyist sort of way) that Mr Betts status as a Pathfinder player and his place in this community has been called into question just because he defends Wizards (yes, he "proved" that he did play Pathfinder, which made me laugh, but that's not the point). I guess now it's my turn to say "what the heck, internet?"
Imagine if they did that over in Magic: the Gathering: for instance, instead of talking about the things that would make Scars of Mirrodin awesome, they instead talked about how bad Alara was, and how great it would be to be rid of it, and who would want to play with that old crap anyway?
Again, the fact that this is what you think WotC did is kind of incredible.
(. . .)
Scott Betts wrote:
This is much more akin to Dominos Pizza's recent pizza crust change. They actively marketed their product as "Geez, guys, our pizza crust used to taste pretty bad. We made it better."
Imagine if someone had reacted to that by saying "What the hell are you talking about?! I loved Dominos' old pizza crust! I'm offended that you'd suggest it's anything but oven-baked rainbows and unicorn flatulence! I will never purchase from Dominos again - not because I dislike their pizza, but because they dared insult their own crust!"
Wouldn't that person strike you as...out there?
Your older posts focused on the idea that WoTC wasn't saying that 3e was bad, and that it was ridiculous to think that they were. You didn't exactly say it and I could be misreading you, but that tone implies that maybe some level of offense would be justified if they had been saying that 3e was bad (which they weren't!)
In more recent posts you are saying that it is okay in marketing to say that your old product was bad, and that that same reasoning applies to marketing in gaming.
Can you clarify, please? Do you think that that particular add was portraying 3e as "bad"? If so (or, theroetically, if it had), do you think that would be okay? And if the same tactics were used in one of Wizards' older and better managed properties; i.e, selling new (MtG) blocks by marketing the old ones as "bad", do you think that would be a good idea?
But getting offended by that ad spot? And using it to decide whether or not to buy the game? That's ridiculous.
I see that my old edition war rival is still waving the 4e pom-poms with vigor and enthusiasm, but the important thing I came away with from those wars was that people expect different things out of their game than I do...
I no longer feel the NEED to defend my game of choice, nor attack the merits of the others...
People in this thread have obviously seen into those ads (and the marketing of 4e in general) as a slight to their game of choice, why even bother calling them out on it? Does it really bother you that much that they would (be or feel offended)? So they were offended? And?
I don't agree with Scott on this one but I do appreciate the desire to call out or question baseless anger and negativity. No, you can't tell someone that their emotions are wrong, but you can make them think about their point of view, and perhaps try to convince them that other companies aren't being as intentionally malicious as they might think.
Maybe I'm wrong, and such 'challenges' are really just compounding the aggression. But in my judgment it's a good thing, especially when we as gamers are so divided, for communities to stop and question why they feel the way they do.
Saying something good about 4e and explaining why that was an improvement would have been fine.
Right, they did plenty of that. Two ad spots received all the attention, though, out of the many more they put out, not to mention that lengthy developer discussions, interviews, and so forth.
The point of the edition-to-edition ad was to explain that although the rules go through evolutions based on the perceived shortcomings of the edition that came before, the game itself remains essentially the same. It's okay to think that they could have done a better job of getting that point across. But getting offended by that ad spot? And using it to decide whether or not to buy the game? That's ridiculous.
You have stopped attempting to address the reasons why we find that add to be scornful (shifting your argument towards, "Well, it's only one add among many"), yet have not stopped asserting that your positive characterization of the add is correct that that it is ridiculous of us to claim otherwise.
There's not much else to say to you on this topic, except that if that's how you feel, then that's how you feel. Think me ridiculous. But I've defended my opinion well and I stand by it; I find the add distasteful, I think that other game companies wouldn't have run it, and I think that other (smarter) departments within the same game company wouldn't have run it either.
These things happen, and as long as you don't hold my ridiculous opinion against me in the future it's really no big deal. :)
No, the marketing crime was making their old edition out to be worse.
Yes, WotC made the truly appalling claim in a comedy internet ad spot that the product they were putting out to replace the old product was better than the old product.
Those jerks.
Saying something good about 4e and explaining why that was an improvement would have been fine. You can keep on ignoring the difference between positive portrayals and negative portrayals in your posts, but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference. Likewise, threatening to come up with a more negative add doesn't help your case; this is still a classic "problem/solution" advertisement. The only thing missing is the grayscale filter which magically vanishes when they get to 4e.
I don't think that your own portrayal is completely wrong. I'm not flabbergasted or outraged that you see it that way. But I do think it's slanted. Again, there's certainly nothing wrong with trying to see these things in a positive light, but I'm not surprised that you're in the minority on this one.
So...they made it appear as though it's more fun to play the new edition than it is to play the old edition? Are you seriously telling me that WotC's marketing crime was making their new edition out to be better?
No, the marketing crime was making their old edition out to be worse.
That add wasn't about the good things in 4e. They didn't say anything at all about 4e; the only thing they revealed about it was that there was going to be a digital character generator, which really isn't even connected to the narrative of the add. If the add had been about positives instead of about negatives (as you are incorrectly portraying it) I think it would have been taken completely differently.
Of the ones I didn't vote for this is actually growing on me the most. I love the way you portrayed Acton with respect with this; that he has no vested interest in unleashing any ancient evils, but doing so certainly wouldn't be beneath him, and he's just sort of been scratching his chin thinking about how this might benefit him. That's perfect.
In my imagination he carries the key around because he pretends to be guarding it, and after making his escape he bemoans his tragic failure to stop the PCs, who obviously stormed the temple intent on unleashing the beast.
The music itself is kinda pedestrian pop clap trap (though good for what it is), but kudos to Lady Gaga for letting her freak flag fly!
Sure, you can look at this as a woman being excessively weird and shocking to get attention... but the simple fact is that it works. She's doing the exact same thing with her career that Marilyn Manson did before her, and Alice Cooper before him. TO me, it looks like she's having a blast, and more power to her, I say.
Totally with you. That made me smile and I'm glad Mothman posted it; the intro made me imagine some 80s scifi/fantasy adventure with puppet aliens everywhere.
Okay, the second one I can see people getting worked up over if they miss the point. The first one, though? No way. There is nothing in there to be offended by or get riled up over. What the heck, internet?
3e: nothing but people looking awkward and not having fun because the DM had to look up the grapple rules
4e: Cue awesome action-flick soundtrack, animations of adventurers cutting trolls head off, everyone grinning and playing and having fun with their dice and laptops
"Out with the old and in with the new" is what they're saying. And yes, to the loyal customers who were throwing money at 3e right up until the end, that does come across as pretty scornful.
Imagine if they did that over in Magic: the Gathering: for instance, instead of talking about the things that would make Scars of Mirrodin awesome, they instead talked about how bad Alara was, and how great it would be to be rid of it, and who would want to play with that old crap anyway?
How many copies of Halo 3 would they have sold if Bungie/Microsoft had focused their (considerable) marketing thrust on poking fun at the old games? Shown adds of people trying to play Halo 1 and 2 and running afoul of all the obvious flaws in those games, faces knotted up in obvious unenjoyment, then BLAM! Halo 3 is here to save the day!! That's how you sell toilet brushes, not how you sell games.
You shouldn't have to rip on the old in order to promote the new. Especially when the "old" was actually ground-breakingly successful. And you were the one selling it.
I like it! "Metal man" is weird but cool, and it's fun to think about why/how my character would have this power. I do however miss the ability to change weapon materials a bit; it seems like he should in some way interact with silver/cold iron/adamantine, because that's where the idea of "metal" is most relevant to most adventurers (aside for their theme song, I mean). I love Lead Screen.
What if 'metal man' let you turn yourself into different metals, instead of (or along with) boosting different ability cores? I suppose that could get complicated fast, though.
This poll is just weird. If I'm playing a game, the amount of material you release DOES increase my chances of buying more books, but there is no release schedule that is going to get me to buy everything you put out. If you only release one book a year, I'm probably only going to buy a book every three years, because the first two weren't relevant to my interests.
