Search Posts
My thanks
I would have liked it if you had just deleted the response then, rather then my whole response to SKR.
He lives! A bizarre sudden retcon to one of the if not the already weakest class in the game that disregards and screws up a laughably great deal of their own material just for the sake of making that class even weaker? How could I resist? ;) The truth is I had almost nothing to do with designing the gunslinger. At all. Or the ninja. Or the samurai. Then mea culpa, my information was wrong. I didn't really mention the ninja or samurai though? (That said, others being the ones who did the gunslinger does not actually speak well) Or the monk, for that matter. Sean, you've been the one who's posted every negative change to monks since they came out. Brass knuckles, the vows, this...if you're not behind these decisions, then someone is using you as a very nasty scapegoat.
Guys, I'm as frustrated about the monk as anyone else but personal attacks aren't going to accomplish anything but poison the well. From my perspective as a monk fan, there's not much water in that well to poison.
Oh SKR, you scamp! Do you ever not poop on the classes you personally dislike? You've been behind SO MANY of the negative changes to the monk! And of course, you were one of the leading voices behind the gunslinger's current execution, in spite of what so many people said during the playtest.
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.
Best idea I've heard yet
If you think "I perfer individualistic gameplay" transltes to "I'm a greedy selfish loot-whore" then yes. That is what you are saying. It is not, however, what I am saying. You dislike being told what to do by the group. That's fine. Really, it is. Some people prefer more individualistic gameplay. That's cool. But that doesn't mean one method of play is objectively better then others. I used to play WoW and was in some raids! At one point I was class leader, in fact! And before I hit that, I was told when I messed up on. And I improved. And after it, I told others how to improve their game. Maybe not in the same chewing out as you seem to be implying, but when a warlock walks to the raid in all spirit gear, someone's gotta tell him not to do that while growing a third hand with which to triple face-palm. And you know what? I still enjoyed it. Oh, it had it's frustrating buts, but they were worth it. Because as frustrating as it could be to smash into a brick wall and beat your head against it a few times, finding just the right way or getting people together and working together and just clicking and bringing that boss down after he wiped you so many times, it's a rush, and it's awesome. And because you're in a group the feelings of being awesome just feeds off each other, and soon everyone in Vent is cheering. It's really cool! It also helps that, once they got past Molten Core, Blizzard learned how to make better and better boss fights that were more fun and required more player attention. Have you done the Kaelthas fight? It's intense, and even when you have it completely memorized, I don't think it ever stops being a blast. And one of the reasons it's a blast is because it's a team effort. "We did it" beats "I did it," because "we did it" is coming out of far more mouths. Alternately, you play with bad groups. That's also a rather strong possibility! Because when you play with a bad group none of the above really happens. You're just kinda irate because you're surrounded by people you can't stand.
Launching an MMO has been compared to launching a space mission. Not positively. To be blunt, I do not mean this in an insulting way, but I think you are way, way over your heads. Especially when it looks as if you are poo-pooing the potential costs in time, money, and effort.
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.
I mean if you're a carebear then that's fine. I'm one. I played in Cenarion Circle - an RP server! Not even a PVP-RP one! I'm not very good at PVP! But I mean, if I had to call out one of the most annoying about the RP server? It was people who made elaborate fanfiction identities about being kings or lords are amazing people in general and fantastic warriors and penultimate archons of magical might, who then couldn't back up any of it in game. God, the number of complaints about how "unfair" it was to beat someone in a duel and expect them to hold by it. At the end of the day you are still playing a game, not a free writing exercise. And regardless of what your Flag RSP says, if it isn't backed up in the mechanics, it may as well not exist. Of course the desire to write fanfiction over making use of the actual game was a very common problem on RP servers.
Not sure if this is to my post but in case it is, I'll just clarify a bit as I see where some confusion might be by how I worded it (sorry about that if the post was for me). I was referring more to MicMan, who's argument seems to be "These changes that made PVP in Battlegrounds less painful allowed people who don't like PVP to play it! And they're very bad at it!" I'm not sure why we'd argue from a state of "But what about these people who don't like PVP, we should build PVP around them!"
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~
If you want a sandbox, that means other people in the sandbox can kick over your castle, steal all your sand, and use it to make their sandcastle even bigger and mightier, and also pay some kids to ensure you can't kick their sandcastle over in turn. Bragging rights to having the biggest sandcastle go to those that've earned it in game, not by writing fanfiction of themselves. Until Lord Derpington can back his claims up, he's little more then another insane unwashed peasant. Also I forget if I already said it but laffo forever at someone quoting Moonguard as an example of awesomely large RP servers. Moonguard's population is like 90% blood elves and humans, and most that roleplaying is going on in Goldshire, if you catch my drift.
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!
I prefer the PVP based four tier system of Rock, Paper, Scissors, Mushroom.
Pfah! You dirty thespians have ruined the perfect purity of our Chainmail wargaming. The best thing about this statement is how true it rang, and how deeply it scarred D&D. Lots of problems can be laid at the feet of angry wargamers.
In WoW, if I am killed in a BG, I am back into buisness within seconds, which promotes all kinds of stupid suicide style attacks and makes BGs unfun for me. That seems rather self correcting. If running in and dying immediately and then respawning in a few seconds, having done nothing of worth, isn't fun, then don't play that way.
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?
You're asking me? I don't have an answer. I'm hoping someone else does! And I do know about Golarion! It was already announced that they plan on putting the entirety of the game in the River Kingdoms. So the question that every new player is going to ask is "What the heck is Golarion, what are the River Kingdoms, and why should I care?" There's a lot of games out there. A lot. And there's a lot of MMORPGs out there. And a large chunk of them are fantasy MMORPGs, and each of them has their own setting. So what makes River Kingdoms something that new players should care about?
The question is: What do the River Kingdoms have that you cannot get anywhere else? And it can't be minute details either, it has to be something that immidaitely pops out.Offhand? The fact that it is a perfect area for a SANDBOX MMO. One of the defining things about the River Kingdoms is the lack of political constancy. So if you want an MMO where players can carve out and create their own kingdoms, River Kingdoms is the best place. That doesn't answer my question in the slightest. You could make that same claim about a lot of places. In fact, you could probably make that claim about any setting that has ever existed. In fact, I'm sure there's plenty of MMORPGs lying by the side of the road that made that very claim! What about River Kingdoms makes it different, and I don't just mean from the rest of Golarion. What makes it something that non-Pathfinder fans should care about?
Not only is this hilariously untrue, people thinking this is exactly what leads to so many failed MMORPGs that tried to dethrone WoW. WoW brought in a lot that was new. Not just in "simplistic gameplay" or "simplistic progression/customization." Do you know what types of resource management existed before WoW? There was mana. That's it. Just mana. If your class had any abilities at all then you used mana. Otherwise you didn't have abilities. That's all there was to it. Then WoW comes in with Energy and Rage and all this other stuff. Warriors have abilities, that wasn't around in Everquest, and they're not tied to mana and are genericly samey, that wasn't around in DAoC. Suddenly rogues actively play differently from other classes. There's actual class tactics behind which buttons you mash. Do you know what customization in Everquest was? It was your gear and what you put stat points in. That's it. Oh sure, Shadows of Luclin gave extra abilities you could choose from, at level 51. But before that? Two warriors could be entirely identical, except one had three more points of strength and three less points of agility, and they had different gear. Overall? Miniscule customization at best. Then WoW comes in with skill points. Suddenly you aren't just a warrior, you're an arms warrior. The other warrior is a protection warrior. You're different. I could go on. But the fact is, not only did WoW bring new things into MMORPGs, they did it so successfully that these things are now thought of as a core part of the genre. These new things were so successful that people don't even realize WoW brought them in. Edit: I would argue, that it could be the strongest selling point of the title (besides the obvious draw of the amazing world of Golarion, & the River Kingdoms). This is perhaps the biggest mark against PFO. Ignoring the fact that only Pathfinder fans know what Golarion is, having the entire game take place in one unified vanilla area is the dumbest g~#$&~n decision you can make for an MMO. Especially in a fantasy game! The question is: What do the River Kingdoms have that you cannot get anywhere else? And it can't be minute details either, it has to be something that immidaitely pops out. There's a reason World of Warcraft takes place across the entire world, not just Westfall.
The last time I saw a game advertising vaguely similar stuff was Vanguard. Vanguard did not do well.
I think the problem isn't so much the amount of material for magic classes (though that was worrying), but how often that material cancelled out the actual "Combat" part of ultimate combat. Like, "Here's a new classes that uses guns and new rules for guns! Now here's a bunch of spells that make guns and that class irrelevant!" Or my personal favorite, Ultimate Combat introducing a level 2 spell that lets spellcasters become immune to AoO's while casting spell!
I'll put up a list later tonight once turkey things are over if no one has put one together yet. I think this thread needs more general terminology and less EVE-specific stuff. Dancey has stated that his vision of PFO is a "better" fantasy version of EVE. EVE-specific stuff seems far more important then a lot of the more generic stuff.
In my perfect world, Pathfinder Online will be to EVE Online what World of Warcraft was to EverQuest. So how much will monocles cost in Pathfinder Online?
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.
As for the other thing, I'm wondering if you're talking about the decisions that CCP CEO Hilmar Veigar Pétursson has claimed full responsibility for? ...That's his job. That is literally the job of the CEO, to take responsibility for things that the company does regardless of what actually occurs. Part of accepting responsibility involved FIRING DANCEY. That conveys the message clear enough.
So, why does this need to be resolved via the rules?Why doesn't it? What about this situation is not solved with application of the rules? Why should it not be solved by the rules? Do you sincerely play without a GM and thus require codification for every and any situation that could come up?
Which is why GMs exist. I'm pretty sure that's essentially what Logic Ninja is arguing - that RAW is kinda stupid so rather then lash yourself to the rules and demand "rules as physics" you handle it via GM fiat, because that's sorta why the GM is there. Like I said, trying to argue rules-as-physics in Pathfinder is like arguing about how awesome your screwdriver is at hammering things. That's cool. I'll...stick to using a hammer. And I'll use my screwdriver as a screwdriver. edit: Also laffo forever at LN being ANTI-INTELLECTUAL because he thinks a screwdriver doesn't make for the best hammer.
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)
I would like to say I have found the rules to be fairly robust once you get out of the adventurer mindset and try to apply them to the typical NPC non-combat tasks. I have found literally the exact opposite of this and I'm ok with that as rules shouldn't be physics.
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).
Well that's all fine and dandy but they did a heck of a job making a system that works when it wasn't intended too. What part "works?"
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.
Other things to note from the report and summary: MtG has continued to rise past apparently big sales last year to do even better, and continues to be the reigning champion. Special mention was given to the D&D board games as another big hit, ranking in at 6th for board games. Even more surprising, D&D Miniatures ranked at 10th under collectable games, giving WotC two separate positions. Except, last I checked, DDM hasn't had an addition or expansion in, what, a year?
Of course, PC-only is not the same as "PC game also on consoles but very well supported on PC." Deus Ex 3 might not be "PC only," but that doesn't stop it from being an incredible AAA PC game.
What's interesting to note is this: Some retailers told ICv2 of differences between the customers of the two games, with D&D 4.0 appealing to new players and people that don’t want to get super-involved in an RPG, and Pathfinder the choice of players that want to spend more time on playing. I would think that most of the more regular or hardcore players are the ones more likely to get DDI or use Amazon (which ICv2 does not cover), while the new or less inclined players are more likely to browse and get one or two books as they look interesting. It would follow then that the retailers are seeing and selling to the new and hobby gamers of 4e and the more hardcore PF players, while DDI snatches up the more in-depth 4e gamers. This would also reflect on WotC's moves for D&D Encounters and other systems that are oriented more at new or casual players and are aimed at getting them into retail stores, while I've found Pathfinder's organized play to be more oriented at the less "casual" gamers, thus bringing in the more "hardcore" players. This matches up entirely with ICv2's findings.
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.
Metamagic rods are p. bad. Also I can't speak about 1e, but Basic monks (or Mystics, if you will) were most assuredly warrior classes. They were, in fact, better warriors then fighters in many occasions. Do you know that when 3e was first coming out, people decried the monks as overpowered before the details were even made clear? There's a reason for that. That reason is "Monks in 1e and Basic were hilariously powerful."
WATCH OUT MAN, IF YOU DIE IN THE EDITION WAR YOU DIE IN REAL LIFE!
So the question is, when a character has a code of conduct, what needs to happen when he breaks it? That's between him and his DM. You can have plenty of really excellent roleplaying and drama without beating people over the head with mechanics. I'm not responding to Seeker until he responds to the alignment changing question. Edit: To repeat it, the whole thing with paladins losing all their powers when they fall to me reeks far too strongly of metagame thinking. If you cannot roleplay without metagaming then that sounds like a personal problem.
It sounds like the complaint is less about guns and more about magic. I mean sure, magic being present would screw up gunpowder. Magic being present would screw up lots of things, but we coat over those just fine.
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. |
