You have to admire Paizo for their consistency and attention to detail. In keeping with the Pathfinder brand identity of re-publishing content that WotC had to pay for, the photo of Rich Baker on that Kickstarter page is hosted on images.wizards.com.
When people talk about Borderlands being "immersive" I think we can finally agree that the word no longer has meaning.
In other words, if you play only a few hours a week you will have a char of roughly the same mechanical power than the nerd who plays several hours a dayDoes anyone else find the use of "nerd" as a disparaging term here hilarious? It's pretty hilarious when nerds call other nerds out and try to act superior to them. We're all nerds, we just play dumb elfgames different.
My dislike of raiding, from experience with it in EQ, EQ2, WoW, etc. is that you get together with twenty to forty other people, die a whole bunch of times, and then somebody else gets an item (or, worse, an item that nobody can use, or that the tanks already all have, drops, and it rots because you can't even pick it up to sell it). Then you didn't like raiding. You liked looting! You liked looting a lot! You loved getting a new item that was better then the old one, and maybe looks a good deal cooler (though with WoW it might look hideous, it was sort of a crapshot)! But you didn't like raiding. I'm not saying you didn't like WoW style raiding, mind you, I'ms aying you didn't like raiding period. Because all your complaints lead back to "I hate having to deal with a big group of people and not get any loot at the end," which is basically "I hate raiding the concept." See, there's a good group of people out there that like raiding. They love getting twenty to forty people together and having to organize everything and keeping groups together. They enjoy it even if they don't get any loot, because they like the group as a whole getting stronger and more capable, because that means they'll beat the fight a little better or easily, and that the next boss afterwards might go down next time. It's individualist mindset ("I matter, above all else") versus non-individualist mindset ("The group matters") There's a lot of reasons for it beyond just enjoying raiding too. You hit the cutting edge guilds, and they don't just like raiding, they like being first. They want to be the guild that figures out how to beat the newest big boss and take him down before anyone else can. They discuss strategies and potential plans and ideas on how to get around different attacks or puzzles that the boss presents, because in a lot of WoW raids the bosses are half puzzle and half actual fight. They love the competitive feel of going head to head with the other "best" guilds to prove themselves superior. So, you don't like raiding. That's fine. Personally? I enjoyed raiding a lot! But then, I'm a group player.
In a way it comes down to how "sandbox" you want the game, to use the popular generic buzzword that surrounds these parts o' town. In full unlimited anything goes sandbox, I can kill you, take your stuff, hide from the guards, and that's it. That's the end of The Story Of Your Stuff. And if you build a cool house I can burn it down. And if you make a farm I can cover it in salt. And if you make a castle I can kick you out and claim it for my own. And then I can build a large sign that says "THANKS FOR THE CASTLE, [your name would be here]!" on the top of this castle, bought from the money I took from you when I stole your castle, salted your farm, burned down your house, and mugged you. This is what "unlimited freedom" means. I've seen some people here claiming there shouldn't be NPCs for god's sake. Heck that suits this hypothetical player even more - it removes the "hide from the guards" part of the equation! Much more efficient! In fact, the game that this was initially compared to - by the CEO of the company in charge of the game no less - is EVE. Which is somewhat infamous for just how absurdly complex schemes to screw over other players can get. ...So, the path I'm hoping to see is "Whoh, ok, maybe not full 'sandbox,' whatever that means. Whoops!" But, you know. However the wind blows~
It feels kinda odd that you're trying to make arguments about PVP and you're doing it from the position of people who don't enjoy PVP, but are forcing themselves to do it anyways. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most of the not awful players are not awful because they actively enjoy what they're doing!
Look, WoW did the whole "entirely unique!" thing. They did it once. Whoever banged the gong to start off a world-changing event regarding the Qiraj or whatever got an extra special mount. That's it. That's all it was. A cool one time server event and the person who started it gets a bug as a mount. It destroyed servers. People went insane over it. Guilds ripped themselves to shreds. There were people going into others' business in real life. I think one or two servers held the event hostage for actual money. Not in-game gold but dollars. When the vast majority of people think about the Qiraj event they don't think about it being cool or epic or unique. They think about the absolutely ludicrous amount of drama. This happened in Vanilla, years ago. Blizzard hasn't done anything like it since, and for good cause. Of course that's for a major event. What about small things like simple bandit bosses and such? Well, then you hit an even bigger problem: you're now devoting time, money, and manpower to a one-shot event that one player or one small group of players gets to experience. And that's it. That's all the bang you get for your buck. One to five players in a massively multiplayer game gets to experience something sorta cool I guess. Do you not see the flaws in this?
The claim isn't usually that WoTC made a computer game based on 4E (as Paizo are trying to do with PF). It was that MMO design impacted heavily on the 4E rules development. The new announcement isn't really analogous, IMO. Let's be honest, the claim is that 4e is BAD and you know what else is bad VIDEO GAMES they're for people without imaginations (SOUND FAMILIAR 4e FANS?) so 4e is just a VIDEO GAME.
Arguing about if Pathfinder - or any edition of D&D - makes for a good "simulation" of a world explicitly via rules-as-physics is like arguing if a screwdriver makes for a good hammer. You can give it a try I guess, but it's not really made for that, and there's far better tools that do the job (like, say, a hammer)
Maybe rules shouldn't be physics?
Do tell me where seduction is classified as an act of Chaos. Because I have NEVER heard of such.Seduction is akin to deception. Only if you're bad at it. Edit: I cannot even begin to grasp how dismal your love life would have to be if you cannot grasp that kissing, caressing, having sex in any myraid of ways, or other shows of physical pleasure are pleasing to both parties. Like do people in this thread know that? That having sex and making out and spending time with someone that you are attracted to and who is attracted to you in turn, even if there isn't a higher sense of permanency with them, really owns? It's great! You should totally try it!
I dunno if it's more hilarious or telling (and depressing) how many people here are absolutely terrified of a woman who enjoys sex. Tell us more about how seduction is evil and girls will always hurt someone if you try to love them (without alluding to the cheerleader that turned you down).
Let me clarify something important here on page three: the economy isn't intended to make sense, the craft/profession skills exist so and only so you can say "See my character sheet says BLACKSMITH on it" and are neigh nonfunctional, and the magic crafting rules are made based around adventuring and nothing else because this is a game about adventuring, not running a magical store.
First time with these rules, I haven't even started the game yet and I already have a list of house rules a mile long again...Paizo is the Blizzard of RPGs: Pathfinder is probably the most carefully balanced game out there right now. That's not to say that it is flawless or that every choice is equally good, but in general if something seems highly imbalanced there's a good chance you're missing a rule somewhere. I feel the need to congratulate you, as I very rarely hear things as incredibly false as this. Case in point, Blizzard actively talks about how much they care about balanced, Pathfinder developers talk about how much they don't care about balance.
I will never stop feeling amusement (and some pity too) that people make "I Play D&D" such a core part of their actual identity that when a game comes out that they don't like, they feel it cannot be D&D since 1) I Play D&D and 2) I don't play this game, ergo 3) It cannot be D&D. As for roleplaying... Pathfinder concerns itself with telling me how to roleplay and then leaves me to try and make the game fun. 4e concerns itself with making the game fun and then leaves me to roleplay. I vastly prefer the latter philosophy. Edit: Also I'm amused at people still saying "3e is OBVIOUSLY D&D" when it's been stated that the literal creature of D&D felt differently.
Almost the entirety of the OSR community and especially in places like Dragonsfoot, where Gary used to post, thinks that 3e was too radical of a change to count as D&D. Hell, Gary himself stated flat out he did not like 3e. The idea that 3e is just the natural progression is the opinion of 3e fans. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I'm saying that falling should not involve the mechanics. At all. In any way. It shouldn't remove any powers or create any dead levels. It should be something that's roleplayed, not metagamed. My example remains ignored: do you or do you not feel that we should return to previous editions where changing your alignment caused mechanical punishments such as losing levels? Your argument seems to be "There's no reason for a roleplay code if it doesn't involve metagaming and mechanical punishments" and, sorry, I disagree.
There's no reason rogues and monks should be chumps for being non-magical not-the-fighter-class. On the other hand, that's how it currently stands.
I mean imagine if in Return of the Jedi, when Darth Vader mocks Luke and comments on corrupting Leia, Luke is suddenly filled with anger and for that brief moment falls to the dark side, charges Vader, and then just dies immidiately when Vader kills him with ease because Luke lost all his class abilities from falling.
If you're a character whose first priority was personal potency, you weren't paladin material to begin with, so the mechanics of paladin falling are irrelevant. If you first priority is anything other than personal potency, all the prospect of losing your paladin powers does is raise how seductively evil has to act to successfully appeal to your other priorities. The paladin stands in the jail cell. He pulls and snarls at the chains that bind him to the wall, knowing that even now, above him, the headsman is preparing the block. Not for him, but for another - an innocent he swore to protect. And here he was, down here, unable to assist. Quietly, seductively, a voice whispers into his ear. "Give it up," it says. "It's so easy. Give in to me. Forsake your vows and swear off your god, and I will give you strength one hundred fold. You can save that precious boy above." He sees it. Visions flash by his eyes - he sees himself yanking the chains off the wall. Storming up the steps and freeing the boy, escaping this jail. Or better yet, casting down the corrupt judges that put him in here, and implementing a new system of justice and mercy. No more headsman's block. No more whips. The paladin raises his head and tilts it to the side to face the devil calmly, before replying: "No, see, if I did that, I'd fall, and I'd basically lose all my class abilities. I mean, it would be just weaknesses all over the place, I'd be pretty useless. Look your deal is nice and all but the mechanics are pretty clear that taking you on your offer would just make me weaker."
The mechanic was designed primarily as player punishment. Because when all is said and done, the only way a Paladin can fall is that the player chooses to let that happen. And that's dumb. It should be a chance for great narrative, potential drama, and an excellent well of roleplaying potential. Not a punishment.
I too feel dread every time I open a D&D book and see that it will contain guns. Not because of fluff reasons but because they always feel the need to give guns their own extra special awful fiddly rules that never work well.
I'm going to actually disagree that Pathfinder is better balanced then 3e. Pathfinder Core is better balanced then 3.5 Core, yes. But 3.5 isn't just core. As time went on WotC experimented and tried to fix their own problems. They looked at the Hexblade and made the Duskblade. They looked at ranger and made the scout, and then made Swift Hunter. They looked at the strengths and weaknesses of vancian casting and played with psionics and invocation classes. They looked at the rogue and made Beguiler and Factotum. They looked at the martial classes and made Tome of Battle. As I said earlier, Paizo's balancing feels like someone trying to fix a problem they themselves don't see. People in this thread (humerously after my post) have talked about how oh man check out the damage the Pathfinder fighter does, it's totally better then 3e. But the 3.5 fighter's problem was never damage. He did plenty of damage. Granted he had to specialize for it, but Pathfinder isn't that much different in that aspect. The fighter's problem was everything else. But, if you never saw those problems or saw those as a problem, then the Pathfinder fighter is totally better because he does more damage. So yeah. Pathfinder isn't better "balanced" then 3.5 because Paizo doesn't see any flaws in 3.5. I haven't seen any critical eye aimed at what's been done, which saddens me because being critical not just of things you dislike, but being critical of things you DO like matters. And being critical yourself matters most of all. To reiterate, it's not even "if you loved/hated 3.5." It's "If you felt 3.5 had little to no balance issues to begin with, Pathfinder is the game for you." Look through this thread and you'll see a lot of people who say that either balance doesn't matter or that 3.5 was never imbalanced to begin with. And people who say both which is really confusing because, you know, make up your mind! But that more or less strengthens my argument. If you had little to no problems with 3.5 then this is your game. If you had problems with 3.5 - even if you liked the core system - then this likely is not the game for you, because it likely does not fix those problems because it likely does not see those problems.
Drizzt is hilarious if you learn about his actual history and how/why RA Salvatore made him. He was created literally at the last minute by RA Salvatore babbling something random out in order to sell his first book.
I agree completely that this is exactly the heritage view that PAIZO has taken with Pathfinder RPG, and its consistent with the origins and history of Dungeons & Dragons. Its like a naturalism that is the source of the rules, and the rules are just useful ways of describing it. Gary Gygax thought 3e was a bad game. Sorry bro. Your patron saint doesn't like your system of choice. Also laffo forever at D&D having a "history of naturalism." D&D monsters were made from children's toys and imagination then rolled on a chart of random monster encounters. This whole "naturalism" thing was born in the last two years as a means of putting down 4e, nothing more, nothing less.
Make it a long running joke that you never actually explain where the weapon comes from, you just shudder and say you don't want to talk about The Goblin Incident.
So if one abilities is the same then they're ENTIRELY THE SAME IN EVERYTHING? Really? Incidentally, you must be really bad if your ability to describe combat is so boring that you can't make your dailies sound awesome. I pity your creativity. While in 4e, every character including caster is based around attacking. That's far better. While in 3e, every character including caster is based around rolling a d20. Do you not see how dumb these arguments are? Oh, and you mentioned utility powers. 3 or 4 of them per combat, and most of them are minor action you use while attacking. "use an utility and attack with the same at-will as any other round" is completely different than "attack with the same at-will as any other round", I guess. Which again just loops us back into "I am literally incapable of describing what my player does." RA Salvatore talked about about the different editions at one point. He said that 1e required - required - a good, inventive, creative DM in order to really work...and that 4e required the same of it's players. Sounds like I found the problem. Edit: A daily that does nothing more then 4[W] sounds really boring. You should pick a different one! Let's see, I'm assuming you mean fighter since they're the prime [W] class and I don't for a second believe you've actually read any of the books or played 4e, so that limits us to Core. Now, I do indeed see one or two dailies that come down to just being extra weapon damage then otherwise (though they have the Reliable keyword which means you don't expend them if you miss), but they also have - in that same level - Villain's Menace which gives you a sizable boost to your attack and damage against that particular foe until the battle is over (very thematic), it has Tempest Dance which lets you shift about the battlefield, striking at multiple enemies all in one go (really cool power, do tons of damage, move a lot without the baddies being able to do anything to you, AND it lets you both mark all those enemies and do even more damage if you're built on dexterity), and Driving Attack, which lets you push the enemy back farther and farther with each blow until you knock him prone (Prone owns, your party rogue will love you forever, plus I can think of a million different ways to describe this) I'll grant you that 4e is really dumb if you just say "I attack. I attack. I attack." I will however require agreement that this goes for every game under the sun, not just 4e.
Know what? Talk is cheap. Let's show it. I and my buddy Mystia are both gonna make the same character because we're bros, and bros stick together, so we both decide to make a Magus. First off is Pathfinder. So, I make a dexterity Magus - a kensai at that, since we're gonna use archtypes to REALLY stretch out our imagination. I want great dexterity and intelligence, so I'm going to make it an elf. My elf magus has high dexterity and intelligence but isn't so hot elsewhere; we'll take the admittingly cookie cutter build of 11, 18, 11, 16, 10, 7, I take Weapon Finesse, and being an elf means I'm a bit better at bypassing spell resistance, I've got some immunities, and a fancy +2 to perception. Now I want to use a longsword but...well, can't. So I go with a scimitar instead. Well, a rapier for now - at level 3 I can finally switch over to my scimitar. For now I use a rapier. Mystia goes for STRENGTH and decides to be a human, so she goes for 17, 12, 15, 14, 8, 7, and takes TOUGHNESS as her first feat because BEING TOUGH OWNS. Because she's a human she'll also take Improved Initiative. She was eying Power Attack but is holding off for now due to the penalty to her attacks from spell combat, and this ensures I don't have an upper hand in initiative. That gives her a nice HP advantage over me, and she does more damage, if a bit less accurate. On the other hand I have better AC and can use my longbow. So, there are the differences between my Magus and Mystia's. I have less HP and damage, but more AC and accuracy, and I can use my longbow better. I also have low-light vision whereas she does not. Now we make Swordmages. This time we switch places - I want to be burly and awesome so I make an Assault Swordmage, while Mystia goes for a Shielding Swordmage. So at the very least, I want better strength while Mystia wants better constitution. Flipping through my options I notice a lot of strength-modifier oriented powers use fire, so I decide to give my swordmage a gimmick - she's going to be big on fire, loves the stuff, very rambunctious, you know the stereotype, and I make her a Tiefling. Mystia on the other hand wants to play something of my opposite, so contrary to my firy assault swordmage, so she makes a cool and collected Eladrin (basically a high-elf). This means before anything else that when I mark a target, if they attack someone else, I teleport next to them and smack them for it. With Mystia on the other hand, if that marked enemy attacks someone that isn't her, she shields them, reducing the damage done by 5+con modifier. Additionally, I have a bonus to bluff and stealth (one will be handy, the other...look she ain't gonna be very quiet), a bonus to hit bloodied enemies, fire resistance, and once per encounter, whenever a baddie hits me, my demonic blood reacts explosively (literally) doing fire damage to them. Mystia, on the other hand, has low-light vision, a skill bonus to Arcana and History, an additional skill, and some standard high-elfy-stuff (bonus to will and against charm spells, counts as a fey creature, trances instead of sleeps. She can also, once per encounter, blink in and out of the Feywilde, teleporting her 30 squares. Now we get into the gritty. First comes our at-wills. We both take Sword Burst because it owns, but I get Greenfire Blade to fit my whole "fire" thing, while she gets Luring Strike, which she thinks better fits the sort of methodical and cunning attitude her swordmage has. For my encounter, I take Flame Cyclone for what should be obvious reasons by now. She, on the other hand, takes Sword of Sigils, which gives her a small bonus due to being a Shielding Swordmage. Lastly comes the daily - I of course take a fire related power, Burning Blade, while Mystia goes with Dimensional Thunder. That's a lot of words. What does that mean? I can strike an enemy, causing fire to explode through them into nearby creatures. I can also shoot a blast of flames to engulf enemies in a cone once per encounter. Once per day, as I strike an enemy, I enhance my sword with increased fire powers, causing it's every strike to do more and more fire damage with each blow. Mystia on the other hand can outmaneuver an enemy, shifting either before or after striking them then, once she's hit them, shifting away (or shifting away further) while luring them into where she once stood. She can with a wave of her weapon cause arcane runes to appear and bind them, dealing damage if they try to strike anyone but her (and giving them an even bigger bonus to reduced damage if they do so), though she can only do it once per fight. And, once per day, she can attack a foe, then teleport away...only to reappear with a roar of thunder that bombards anyone near her when she arrives. Sounds fancy. How does it translate into actual mechanics? My character is very aggressive. All my attacks are fire-based, and I generally work best when enemies are clumped together. Greenfire Blade and Flame Cyclone is great for putting the hurt on a lot of enemies perhaps with little HP, and Burning Blade increases my offensive capabilities by a good chunk. Mystia's character is cunning and methodical. She doesn't have to worry about tricky or fast enemies due to her ability to outmaneuver them, and indeed can do just that to ensure they stay away from our allies or to gain combat advantage on them. Sword of Sigils allows how to mark multiple enemies at once to keep them focused on her, while Dimensional Thunder means she can't be blocked away from where she's needed most - and woe betide any enemy that tries to block her, since she can use the thunder damage of Dimensional Thunder to make them pay. So far, both characters actively play different. But we're not done. I get to use that longsword I had my eyes on, and for my feat I take the multiclass into Wizard to gain one of their at-wills as an encounter power. I take Thunderwave - though it's not fire based like my other abilities, it fits the swordmage's personality hilariously well, letting her make a punching motion at the enemy to send them tumbling away. Mystia, on the other hand, doesn't have my strength, so her basic attacks are rather puny; she takes Intelligent Swordmage, which lets her use intelligence instead of strength for basic attacks. She also grabs a Glaive, which counts as both a polearm and a heavy blade; a sign of ideas in the future if the game goes on that long.
No, you can do lots of cool stuff that aren't powers. They're called stunts, and 4e very explicitly has better stuff for it then 4e does. I understand that in 3e - and really only in 3e - there's this idea that you can only do things that are explicitly given rules, but that's a strange 3e-ism, not something that's universal. And for spellcasters: As for spells, they took out pretty much all the spells I actually liked and replaced them with AoEs and Rays (which I never take at all); so all mages are blasters. Rituals. Actually.Heres probably a more apt description: Characters within a class play much more similarly to eachother, and characters are strictly stuck in a role which tends to play very similarly. And your character plays the same today as it did yesterday as it will tomorrow. you dont have enough spare abilities to mix it up much. Again, this describes 3e far more then it describes 4e. A grappling fighter plays starkly different from a two hand weapon using fighter who plays different from a sword and board fighter who plays different from a tempest fighter. An archery ranger plays starkly different from a two weapon ranger plays starkly different from a beastmaster ranger. A guardian druid plays starkly different from a predator druid, and none of this even touches multiclassing or hybrids or variations within those variations. A guardian druid that focuses on summoning plays different from a guardian druid that doesn't. While in 3e, a two weapon warrior charges and full attacks, a sword and board warrior charges and full attacks, and two handed warrior charges and full attacks. And a two weapon barbarian charges and full attacks. And a two handed weapon barbarian charges and full attacks. Because every non-caster class in 3e is based around full attacking. Even full-casters like the cleric charge and full attack, they just buff themselves before doing so. So my question remains: why do you lie? Even a rudimentary game of 4e would at the very least illustrate the differences in playstyles between classes, and once you actually examine the powers and how different classes can specialize themselves, it because very readily apparent that there's playstyle differences in the classes themselves. So why do you lie?
That every type of game must be run using Pathfinder. That "roleplaying" is found in bad design. That 'fun' somehow precludes good design.
The idea that WotC is or should be trying to cater to 3e fans that didn't switch to 4e is pretty bizarro. Even more bizarro is the idea that they should compete for Pathfinder fans who have largely sworn off WotC entirely. If there is one surefire way to have a game project fail, it's listening to people who are not going to buy your game in the first place.
Also my friends that prefer GURPS always find it adorable when D&D players of any edition refer to themselves as "simulationist"
And I find that exploitative and demeaning. Oh, the topic of men and boys being held to demeaning standards is indeed a very interesting one, and one you might find me agreeing with far more then you might expect. However, that topic is about the societal expectations of men as far as social functioning goes, not about masculine posing and feminine posing. Let me put it this way: It is totally wrong that men are pushed into aspiring for physical violence and emotional weakness. However/ that is different from masculine poses. Masculine poses are ones not built on emotional weakness; on the contrary, feminine poses are. Masculine poses are built on both physical and emotional emotional strength; feminine poses are built on both physical and emotional weakness.
I'm not responding to you again until you make an argument. If you have a point to make then make it. And you believe that masculine poses cannot be exploitative? To put it another way, this is somewhat of a nonstarter. I would return with: "Why are women in fantasy art drawn as porn when men aren't?"
Sorry, I'm not an expert on gay porn. Use words to explain what you are trying to say. Watch me use them: The problem with "feminine" poses is that what they idealize is weakness and submissiveness when they are "realistic" poses, and when they're not realistic poses they are awkward pushes towards making the female character push out her chest or expose as much of her body as she can. This pushes the "ideal female pose" into one that is based entirely around sexualization and submissiveness. Running opposite of that are masculine poses, which idealize strength, power, and individualism. Masculine poses when they are unrealistic are done to push out and expose muscularity which in turn is tied to physical strength. This pushes that the "ideal male pose" is one based entirely around power. Perhaps the most damning thing about this is simple: women can engage in male poses without looking rediculous, while men cannot engage in female poses without looking rediculous. This was indeed the purpose of the already given pictures. When a female character is put into a masculine pose, then she takes on the idealization of strength, power, and individualism. Generally most people don't have issues with this; a strong female character is rightfully lauded and appreciated. However, when a male character is put into a feminine pose, then he takes on the idealization of submissiveness and showing off his skin. This is why it looks rediculous - because in society the role of being submissive is a feminine one, and when a male character is pushed into a feminine one, societal views reject it. Or, to put it more simply, it's seen as alright to work your way up in society, but not to fall down it. It's fine for women to "work up" to male posing, but it's not alright for men to "fall down" into female posing.
Some of us disagree You are free to explain how masculine poses that emphasize strength, power, and individuality are exploitative and demeaning.
It's pretty laffo that you said "It's not about taste" and then immidiately launched into how it's entirely about taste. It's a lot more laffo that you seem to have some bizarre rating scale where you identify different types of paper used and then quantify the worthiness of artwork inside as an objective measure.
and the masculine ones are not?This is what it would look like if "beefcake" and cheescake were made equal.That fails by trying to apply feminine poses to males not the true broad chest showing, muscle demonstrating poses look at how masculine i am poses that ARE in the comics and just as silly. That is correct. The masculine ones are not.
As far as racism/feminism etc are concerned... I'll take it more seriously when those that use it as a scapegoat get called out by the people on their side. I.E. when I hear of racism in the news, I assume that it is a lie and that there is no racism, until I see Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson get on the camera and say that in this particular case it is not racism. Same with any other form of -ism. Until then, my attitude is "yeah, riiiight". ThingsWhitePeopleSay.txt
I mean...
...When did this switch happen?
This is what it would look like if "beefcake" and cheescake were made equal.That fails by trying to apply feminine poses to males not the true broad chest showing, muscle demonstrating poses look at how masculine i am poses that ARE in the comics and just as silly. ...Yeah, that's sorta the point. I mean...did you...did you miss what I was saying completely? The whole point is that "feminine" poses are really dumb and exploitative.
What I mean is playing the victim is NEVER EVER empowering. If a fictional idealized character makes you feel insecure then you need to look within for the souce of your troubles. Its just plain misandry to blame men for liking the female form. And for the record I don't see PETA on here complaining about the fictional enslavement of familiars. Maybe because they have REAL animals being abused? That and people would think they were mental... Society should really stop making women into victims, then. Nobody here is harping that women can be hot. I'm a straight dude. I'm all for hot women. The problem is when it becomes exploitative. Cheesecake is often exploitative. See here's the thing - how women are presented in media is absolutely important. Absolutely important. As a dude, I'm not surrounded by pictures of other men who are stunningly attractive. I've never felt like I had to match Brad Pitt. And what's more, the images of other people "similar" to me are all very powerful ones. I mean, I'm a white male. Do you have any idea how many role models I have access to? I don't, because I stopped counting! If I want images of sexy dudes, done. Easy. No problem. If I want images of rugged dudes, done. Ugly dudes. Men in armor. Men without armor. Ugly or sexy guys in or without armor. Any of the above carrying any sort of weapon that could ever be used, I have that. If I was an asian woman making a character modeled after myself and wanted to be wearing heavy armor and wielding a two handed sword? I'm pretty much SOL. Maybe one or two pictures from L5R. There's the one picture where this badass warrior woman is covered in blood and holding an axe, that's pretty awesome. I need to really, really like that picture though, because that's about all there is. But I can be a sexy sorceress. Or a sexy cleric. There's a few different types of sexy warrior, most of them not really wearing armor. White Male Cirno can be a battle scarred and brooding barbarian, White Female Cirno can be a topless thin barbarian girl who barely holds her sword. And god help me if I'm Native American. I better like racial stereotypes a whole lot. So yeah, images matter. A lot. I haven't even touched on the differences in growing up surrounded by different images and I've hopefully already pushed that images matter a whole lot.
From what I have heard, when WotC converted Dark Sun to 4e, they returned it to the era before the Prism Pentad novels, which drastically altered the setting much to the chagrin of many Dark Sun fans. Let me correct you: "When when WotC converted Dark Sun to 4e, they returned it to the era before the Prism Pentad novels, which drastically altered the horrible changes TSR made to the setting much to the happiness and utter joy of many Dark Sun fans." Nobody liked Prism Pentad.
It seems to be I should repost what I said earlier: the problem is not with the concept, the problem isn't with some sorta divide between ROLEPLAYERS AN ROLLPLAYERS, the problem is with thesystem that makes some options mechanically bad for the reasons of uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Oh wait, "because ROLEPLAYING" is the excuse used around here. Which of course is hilarious because doing so harms roleplaying.
Monte Cook, let me tell you about my idea. It's a new class based around heavy armor and the usage of multiple weapons. This is a guy that's good with multiple fighting styles that utilize those multiple weapons I talked about. He'd be a martial class, low magic but extra-normal. I call him the fighter. You can use this, if you want. This is merely the tip of the iceberg
Talk of video games is irrelevant, it's all been downhill since Shadows Over Mystara.
Incidentally, Hasbro is notorious for being hands off amongst multi-group corporations. The idea that they're pushing on WotC for D&D is laughable at best. Here's something that might blow your mind. The changes in 4e were made because the developers and many players thought they were good changes. That's it. Edit: Also if WotC really wanted to make a blatent naked cash grab, they would've just updated a small handful of rules in 3.5, changed around a few things, and sold it off as a new system OH SNAP!
I don't really want to do the whole quote-by-quote thing. How about this though: literally everything you said is wrong. Not like, "I disagree," but factually and objectively incorrect. "All classes are the same?" Nope. Are all 3e classes the same because they use a d20 instead of different types of dice? I certainly heard that complaint when 3e was first unveiled. It was wrong. The claim that 4e is too similar is equally wrong. "The game is too railroady and players can't do anything?" Nonsense. Will you then go on to claim that 3e is literally the only D&D edition that wasn't this way? Because there weren't skills before 3e. 2e had NWPs which were a) optional, and b) a hot mess. You go back far enough, there isn't even those - just pure DM decisions typically based around "Well roll your stat." There's plenty of out of combat thigns you can do in 4e. Lots of 4e players do it all the time. We just realized the lesson we already knew, before 3e came out - that you don't need to write "Profession: Baker" on your character sheet to be a baker. Your complaints are tired and stale. They are tired and stale because I've heard them a thousand times now. They are tired and stale because they are simply incorrect. They are tired and stale because at least in these complaints you present the air of "I don't know much about 4e, but let me complain about it anyways."
First off, let me correct you. Yes. You do need quotes. If you're going to claim 4e took things from WoW right after I provide quotes that prove 3e did so with M:tG, you do, indeed, need to provide quotes to back up what you're saying. Secondly, if cooldowns = WoW, then every edition of D&D is WoW. Wait. My god. Pathfinder classes have daily...cooldowns. And Pathfinder added new things to barbarians and rogues, such as...powers. The Warcraft, it's everywhere
The day you realize that "Pathfinder fans defending 4e" is meaningless, the day you realize that there is no hard line that separates "Pathfinder fans" and "4e fans," the day you realize that one can enjoy or not enjoy both. That is the day you will begin to understand what I've said. It is a day I don't think will come for many. |
