Search Posts
I believe you are right. I believe that most of these GMs are just searching for something they will never find, not because games are more badly done than they were say... 15 years ago, but because THEY, the GMs, or their needs, rather, changed over the years. My conclusion is just for them to realize they have to make their needs happen through house rules and agreements at the game table rather than chase something they will never find in a stale rule book.
Any system can be easily house ruled. I think most people prefer a game they do not have to heavily house rule. I believe that "systems you do not have to house rule" quickly becomes something of a myth once you start getting aware of your needs and wants as a game master (when you start, you just accept written material as the thing that stands. Which in itself has its advantages and flaws, and which of course creates this feeling that "this game was so much better when I was young". But hey... we all evolve). There are literally zillions of game systems out there, and yet gamers still feel like chasing what they call "the perfect system". It doesn't exist ouside of their own imagination. Which is a good thing. Take a game system and universe that most reflect your own tendencies, and then tweak them to suit your needs. House rule. Modify. Make it work for you. That's the way tabletop gaming's supposed to work.
Ptolus signed by Monte is nice, but also having the signatures of Sue Cook and the proofreaders would be even better because those folks did an awesome job on that behemoth. Totally agreed. Plus players on Monte's group. Erik, Sean, I'm gonna ask you to sign my Ptolus volume... BTW, I ordered the Collected BoXM just two days ago. Any chance of getting a numbered copy still?
My deal breaker would be to re-do the Epic Level rules as they stand now in the OGL, so I'm really, really glad to read you won't be doing this. The ELH SUCKS. For me, Epic means tone first and foremost. It makes me think, as far as fantasy's concerned, about characters like Elric or Hawkmoon, or Companions of the Champion thereof. It makes me think of worlds, universes hanging in the balance, of incredibly strange friends and foes, of whole new dimensions to explore. It does not mean the same old same old with more math and a sh!tload of dice thrown for damage. It does not mean a bloated character sheet. The idea of a clear cut from the core rules, for instance the "Epic Level 1" idea of James Jacobs, seems to be the good way to go. Powers could be conceptually based off the character classes' archetypes, but would have broader effects and more... imagery to them. Think "Mage: The Ascension" Spheres or high level Vampire Disciplines, when the actual powers become more free-form in nature, but with a little more structure/limits to them. I think the D&D Classic Immortals box would be a good starting point (but just that, for the base inspiration, not the mechanics themselves). Something still playable, that is still D&D in nature (tactically, with team-work, clear roles in a party, some exploration of "dungeons" though the concept of dungeon itself could/should be dramatically broader at this point). I guess what I would not want would be a "superhero"/goofy/anime emphasis to it. That's not what I'm looking for when I think "Epic". I'm thinking more about the Abyss of Nihrain, the end of the Million of Spheres, Adventurers on the Seas of Fate... if you see what I mean.
I think one of the failings of 3.5 is in large parts to not clearly explain the math that's going on behind the hood. When you read the 1E DMG, it goes on to explain how probabilities work and such. It also has a very inclusive, "we're both DMs, here's why I do this that way" kind of tone to it thanks to EGG. I'd like to see this from Pathfinder. For instance, the long awaited, never published "High Level Handbook" explaining everything one has to look out for, specific ways to handle specific abilities and spells in adventure design, how to design encounters, et cetera. NOT a rehash of the vastly failed "Epic Level Handbook", I hope I'm clear. I hope the keys to the system are given to the DMs more than it ever was done in any 3.X variations before. I'd like to see a work that makes the whole mathematics, intricacies, complexities of the system readily understandable to any aspiring DM. Is that even possible?
The prestige classes included in the base PRPG rules should reflect the 3.5 panel by design, for conversion purposes. That much is clear. Nothing stops Paizo (or third party publishers, if Paizo goes ahead with its "Pathfinder compatible" license program) to add to the available panel of PrCs, however. I for one think Prestige Classes are great tools for three reasons: 1/ when designed appropriately, they help flesh out the world by developing its own character-specific and organization-specific rules; they tie particular characters to the world at large, 2/ they provide almost infinite possibilities of character advancement, and 3/ they provide opportunities for DMs and players to share the fun in designing new mechanical elements for the game.
What things are off-limits for being changed? For instance... Rather than making a laundry list of particular items, I think it's best to remember that PRPG's primary goal is for 3.5 rules to remain in print. This implies that core classes are indeed more or less set in stone, as are the Prestige Classes, though additions to the basic components of the game are always possible. So long as you can grab an OGL book and basically can use it with PRPG with minimal efforts on your part, I think PRPG reaches its primary design intent. This leaves a lot of room to improve the game "under the hood", basically, like CBM rolls do. They are there, but I can still use a 3.5 character with a Sunder special ability with them. The particular rule just shifts instead of being out of existence.
I own both products. I've been collecting RPG products for years now, and I have to disagree with the OP. I definitely want the PRPG to be hardcover. The Beta rules binding is way too thin, way too easy to mark/fold (as a matter of fact, the copy I received through the mail had all the pages and covers already badly folded due to the way it was handled). I want the Pathfinder rulebook to be able to stand for years at my game table and on the shelf. Softcover rulebooks just do not survive that long unscathed, unless you never ever use the book.
D&D could suffer the same fate, though it's unlikely. What it tells me is that when you lower the standards below the customers' expectations you pay the price with lesser returns. Your product becomes worthless in the customer's eye, and this eye is ALL that matters. I wish they would learn from that. They could, if Hasbro wasn't itself pushing for greater returns (and thus a concentration of effective brands) from its subsidiary in the background.
I still don't want to switch to 4E (though I don't hate it by any means - it's just not the game I want to play). I still enjoy OGL/3rd ed materials out there way more than 4E. From where I stand, Paizo made the right choice. To each their own I guess, but I bet many people have a similar experience to mine.
I love Saga Edition Star Wars, so you can see that I really don't dislike the system Same thing here. At the time Saga was published, I was one of its most ardent supporters, and still am. I warned, even at the time, when rumors were running wild, that what worked mechanically for the SW universe may not work for D&D necessarily. Sadly, I was right, from my point of view. That's okay if many disagree as they are. It's all about our relative tastes and experiences. It's fine if they don't match.
I agree. There are some things about 4E that are worth salvation in some form or another, but the overall WotC PR, core books content and handling of the future of DnD does not make me a customer. No later than yesterday, I was pouring though some of my oldest print magazines and sighed "I miss Dragon and Dungeon mags". I don't want electronic versions. I want print magazines. They're gone. Add to this that in many ways, D&D fired me as a customer by WotC's PR calling me a guy "unwilling to accept change" and other insulting shortcuts, as well as making the rules more miniatures friendly, even more tactical (i.e. nitpicky on placement and definitions of actions and reactions) than they were before, and that's about it. Add to this that I have enough OGL gaming materials to last a lifetime, and that I simply do not want to learn yet another new game system obsolete in eight years from now or less. Add to this that there is actually one gaming company going on with the OGL, Paizo. Result? Clearly: Paizo it is.
Let's not forget that the assault on the Jedi Temple and Order 66 is one thing. The hunt for the remaining Jedi after Episode III, during the Dark Times as featured in Force Unleashed, is another. There, Darth Vader is intrumental in hunting down the survivors. Vader killed many Jedi. Not just the younglings in the Temple, and not just the Jedi of the Temple.
I basically gave up on 4E debates. I don't support what 4E stands for, what I perceived as the motives behind it, and the way it's been brought to us by Wizards (the PR). The game system itself does have some merits, but is not what I'd call "D&D". My opinion is logical to me. I no longer expect my views to be acknowledged in any way, shape or form, since any kind of discussion about this quickly devolves into a fight of "4vengers" vs. "anti-4E" crowds. There's enough of this crap online already. I moved on to play Pathfinder.
Agreed, a CharOp board invites a whole other type of atmosphere to the boards. That, for me, is the crux of the problem. I'm opposed to an optimization forum for this very reason. There is already way too much attention given to game systems and rules discussions. A CharOp forum would encourage that particular take on gaming. I have nothing against message boards or members talking about that sort of thing. I just think that this particular aspect shouldn't be emphasized on Paizo's boards. If there would be such a forum, why not a character background forum, then? A DMing and Campaign Building forum? A "rules" forum would seem more appropriate because it would be less focused. This type of forum already exists here.
Why do the core rules have to be married to Golarion? Now, upon reading your perfectly legitimate question, my first thought was: "Is it?" I don't see how the Beta ruleset is Golarion-specific. The explanation of the racial bonuses and maluses isn't world-specific to me. It's another take on the concepts than the original rules, for sure, but that's not Golarion specific, is it? Could you enlighten me? This is not snarky; this is a serious question.
No offense, but if you equate truth-telling about marketing and optimization of revenues for a company to equate "harangues vs. capitalism", you really ought to double-check your own values system. I couldn't be more pro-capitalism, actually. Capitalism doesn't have to go hand-in-hand with blind support from the costumers to any given company because of ideals or morality. It is actually contrary to the idea of capitalism, if you ask me. Oh, and by the way: I've read the books. I know what I'm talking about. Every usual user of these boards knows that I've read them. You shouldn't attack people like this without a tad bit of background story to avoid ridiculing yourself. That said, we still can disagree with each other, provided we don't snipe like we both just did, and that's fine with me. :-)
I disagree, CWM, because you do have games still on print which basically haven't changed to the core since their first publications decades ago. Call of Cthulhu comes to mind. Sure, you have Cthulhu d20, Delta Green, Trail of Cthulhu and CthulhuTech gravitating around, but the core game is still reprinted, with very thin differences between printings.
Wouldn't that relegate the game to stagnation, though? Part of me can't help but think that the whole evolution and stagnation concepts as we talk about them for role-playing games are mirages. Would you consider a game like Chess "stagnant"? Its rules didn't change for the past centuries, you know? [Sure, you'll find the odd product adding a twist to the Chess game (Tempest on the Chessboard comes to mind), but really, the core, mainstream rules haven't changed] I think this whole idea of game evolution is just an artefact of modern consumerist marketing. "Quick! Got to have the NEW product, the NEW color, the NEW shape! Doesn't matter if the product we have works just fine! No, no, no! Let us not think, but BUY! Follow the Fashion of the Day! Show off to the other kids in the school yard (or 'RPG community' if you will)." And so on. Malarkey, as far as I'm concerned. All it is, my friends, is the old recycling of goods destined to sell you the same product over, and over again without having to expand what already is. It's cheaper, easier, uses less resources and -gasp!- imagination. It's win-win for a game company.
Part of me wonders how much of this mentality is a result of 3rd Edition and trying to have a rule for the majority of situations. It`s like the old adage that rules are made to be broken - the more rules you make, the more aggressively some people try to exploit those rules to prove they cannot be constrained by them. It definitely is a 3rd edition legacy. It existed well before it, but never to that extent. The whole obsession with "game balance" when in fact people only think of "rules balance", discarding the fact that DM and players do play a role in the actual GAME balance, is tied to this topic of over-codification of the game rules.
Yes, you get what I mean, I think. And yes, that's what I originally thought. I can't be the only one who thought so, seriously. That alone shows that the idea I'm trying to convey isn't an hallucination.
yes and no... as a person the other players owe the GM respect, not loyalty, not fealty, but respect fro what he does... so does the DM owes respect to their players... one should not thrash each other because he is less than perfect Everyone should respect anyone as a human being, so long as they prove themselves worthy of that respect. I.E. Earn it. My bottom line, really, is that respect is not owed, but earned. The DM won't be respected by virtue of being a DM. A DM will be respected by showing all kinds of traits that inspire confidence from the players in the DM's abilities (consistence, fairness, adaptability, experience, understanding, empathy etc).
I love adventures featuring graphic, disturbing and otherwise mature content, personally, as long as they're not treated as a trivial matter in-world (i.e. innocents dying is a tragedy, people getting corrupted really pay the price for giving in to their twisted ways, etc). I feel fantasy RPG adventures, in D&D in particular, have been WAY too tamed and bland since the whole media backlash of the 80's. One of the interesting components of fantasy fiction was the mature content involved, for me, with authors like Moorcock or Leiber or Howard or Lovecraft and many many more. I want RPG adventuring to be able to embrace mature themes and be able to treat of those topics with more contrast and a different approach, precisely because this would so obviously be "fantasy". There's been a war going on about Fantasy and its purpose in the literary field for decades between those who see it as a means to emphasize what's fundamentally good and glorious about one's own humanity, and those who see it as a stage in which you could treat of topics that would otherwise be much more offensive to readers when that would not be so obviously fictitious. Now, I love both traditions and think they both have a part to play and inspire in gaming. We've been playing the light-hearted side of this for a long time now. I'm glad we can get some crisp mature content without resorting to DeCamp lameness through Pathfinder. I hope we'll get more contributions from Nick and others around these lines. This is very much welcome, to me.
10. DON'T believe Balance is the begin-all and end-all precept of the game. When balance gets in the way of the entertainment the game provides, trash it. 11. DO listen to your players feedback, what they like and don't like, and build the game around it. By providing the type of entertainment the players seek, you are reaching for excellence in DMing. 12. DO understand this is not "your" game, and these aren't "your" players. This is everyone's game, and the players are people just like you. They don't owe you respect. This is something you have to earn by aiming for excellence, fairness, knowledge, dynamism in DMing. 13. DON'T, EVER, say "no" to a player, particularly concerning character building and options, player's feedback, initiative and imagination without explaining the reasons why you say so. This might have to be explained after the game session (or campaign) is over (it's probably better that way, so as to not interrupt the flow of the game itself), but do take the time to explain the reasons behind your rulings. See #11 from there.
What I don't like about the tome-look is these are -to me- very obviously computer-generated. I don't like covers I could have done with a bunch of textures and Photoshop, basically. I like art, whether that'd be drawing, patterns, maps... you know. Stuff that's drawn, designed by artists using their own hands. Look at the cover of Castle Zagyg: Yggsburg, for instance. The grey background is ugly, for sure, but the painting itself... that's awesome.
For me, this whole thing about the FR rebooting is just a part of the bigger issue/fact: that WotC decided to take the D&D brand, mechanics,and core background/assumptions into a new direction that would -hopefully to the management- create a new buzz and develop the market. If that meant walking all over the old D&D tropes, and firing the old guard for it, so be it. That's what it comes down to. I hope the new fans of the game appreciate the new setting. I'll stick to the Grey boxed set personally.
I'm interested, actually. How's the Mythos treatment as it pertains to the background/futuristic era? Is it cool? Original? Sketchy? Very detailed? How good are the ideas?
Should I buy this? |
