ValmarTheMad's page

I'm taking a new job in Richmond, VA and will be moving there mid/late February.

I'm a long-time gamer, I've played more games and systems than I can remember, and I'm looking primarily for a mature (meaning game-focused, but with "real" jobs and an understanding of work/life/game balance) group who enjoys RPing/Action/Story in relatively equal measure.

I could run, but I'm looking more to play until I get to know the group.

Games I'm most interested in:
Pathfinder
D&D 4e
DC Adventures/M&M (3rd/current Ed)
Shadowrun (2e/FASA)

If you think you've got something I'd be interested in, and you've got a spot, let me know here.

Thanks!

VtM

ValmarTheMad wrote:

So, Star Trek, The Next Generation it is, and I'll be a member of the Q, thanks.

Are you certain? Because I hear once you've been the dog, the Continuum can get boring.

I'd still be willing to try it out.

Kthulhu wrote:

Of course, because 4e used the GSL, it will eventually be much more dead than 0e-2e.

You'd be surprised what can be recreated under the OGL.

There's already OD&D-2e retro-clones, and if you really look at 4e and broke it down, you could recreate much of it under OGL 3.X rules.

4e may appear vastly different on the surface, it may play differently, but the mechanics wouldn't be impossible to replicate under OGL.

Counterpoint: when I was in college and grad school I was in something like 13 campaigns in 7 different systems. Games and gamers were plentiful, and since we were all in college, we had tons of time to play.

However, now that we've all "grown up", separated to different states, gotten "real" jobs, most are married, some have kids it's not likely we'll ever be able to play that many games again simply due to time and life constraints.

Add into that general lack of time and freedom the idea that the gaming community is so fractured that I have a hard time finding games in my area that suit my play style even when/if I do have time. And, of course, just because I have time doesn't mean my friends do, we don't have the same days off, same schedules, or same home/life obligations.

So, little time, little ability to find "like minded" gamers ("We only play 4e, We only play PF, We're Hack N Slash, We're RP"), leaves a dwindling chance to have a lot of (sometimes any) TT RPG in my life.

BUT, I can go boot up Skyrim, Dragon Age, WoW, KOTOR, SWTOR, NWN and either play by myself of jump into the ever-present MMO.

The roleplaying is mostly non-existent, the games are "canned" and scripted and don't really care what I do or don't react to things I'd like to see, but they're there when I have time, anytime I have it--I don't have to try to wrangle with people's schedules, or juggle locations, I don't have to "cover" for a player who drops out last minute or has to work/can't be there/etc.

Sadly, it's all those external factors that are pushing me, and seemingly a lot of "gamers" off the table and into the virtual realm of C-RPGS and MMORPGs.

VTTs and PbP and all of that is just too "unfun", too visually lacking, too slow, and too devoid of TT interaction to fill the niche, and for all the effort to make VTTs better, they'll eventually become so similar to video games that they won't be anything like traditional TT RPGs...

So...sad as it is, I think video games in one way or another will replace, or at least largely take over the RPG industry...

ymmv

Too bad we don't have signatures here, so let my quite mine from another forum:

When you start to cut up a quoted post into single sentences to reply to each one seperately, you've probably started to just defend your oppinion as valid instead of adding any new thoughts to the discussion. Then it's a good idea to just let the issue rest, even though you think your opponent is wrong.

Sometimes it's just for clarity of thought.

I think half of what's said on forums is lost in the shuffle, half ignored, half useful, and the last half only half-listened-to.

ValmarTheMad wrote:

Taking away the OGL might be a "terrible" decision for the industry, but it's a great way for D&D to protect its Brand and it's market share.

As seen over the last four years, right? They didn't release 4e under the OGL, and it was great for D&D's market share, right?

The last four years have not been the success for D&D as a brand or for their market share largely because of the OGL, and Pathfinder, right?

So why would they want to ensure that 5e comes out into the midst of competitors using their own system against them?

Without the OGL there wouldn't be the battle for market share with Paizo since Pathfinder would not exist as the supported replacement for 3.X that WotC abandoned.

And WotC must have realized this or else 4e would have shipped with an OGL instead of the GSL. It was a defensive maneuver to protect 4e from 3P 4e products as well as Pathfinder and the rest of the 3.X OGL competitors.

WotC now has to figure out a way to protect 5e much better than they did 3.x, but without alienating people who "expect" to see an OGL.

And, in that regard, the OGL was a complete failure for the D&D Brand--they lost market share, they lost profits, they created the idea that it "has" to be included in future D&D Brand products, and they inadvertently created a system where every 3P can successfully compete with WotC's new products with re-packaged former editions of D&D's own "dead" editions.

So, again, what's Hasbro's incentive to repeat all of that with the launch of a robust 5e OGL? How would any of what has happened before encourage them to use the same type of OGL?

How would a repeat of the last four years of struggle to increase D&D brand's profits or market share help them make the $50-100Million target Hasbro wants out of D&D?

ValmarTheMad wrote:

Without a 5e OGL, Pathfinder would be stuck with either staying OGL-Compatible and "falling off the curve"

You know, a lot of people said the same thing four years ago about sticking with 3.x-compatible as opposed to going with 4e. How did that work out?

Again, had the OGL never existed then there would be no 3.x-compatible anything to stick with. 3.x, like OD&D-2e, would be just another dead edition, and would certainly not be alive and competing with D&D's current edition for market share.

If 5e is succeeds at being the great "Uniter" that will call all previous-edition gamers back to D&D, why open that up to competition when you could corner the market by having your one product appeal to every gamer from every one of your prior editions?

There is no "curve" to fall off; there is no equivalent to Moore's Law for non-electronic games.

Most articles refer to it as the core segment vs. "lapsed gamers" who have fallen out of the purchase cycle.

Dead editions are not driving current sales, Pathfinder and 4e are battling for market share, and dominating most of the industry because people are buying them. If the dead editions were sufficient, then sales would be flat, and clearly that's not the case. New players are not coming into the industry by purchasing the new products, not the old ones.

If you want to play PFS, Encounters, Lair Assault, Essentials, Kingmaker or any of the current products, then you're buying the current systems "off the shelf" to do so. The industry is not driven by dead editions, it's driven by what's currently being marketed and sold and supported. Sure, someone on eBay may have just bought a mint Field Folio, but that's an outlier and nothing compared to the sales of PF or 4e--and that reflects the player base that's interested and motivated to stay "current".

If not, then even Pathfinder wouldn't have found success since everyone would have just stayed with their WotC 3.X products. Instead, Pathfinder was seen as "better", newer, and supported--whereas D&D 3.5e was "dead" and off the curve.

Plus, in another smart move, Paizo made Pathfinder just different enough that while it's still OGL-compatible, you cannot play it with the WotC D&D books. You cannot sit at a table in PFS with your 3.5e PH, you cannot play in a home game with a 3.5e DMG and have it work with Patfinder rules--not exactly, and not completely. So, Paizo has effectively made D&D books "obsolete".

But, on the flip side, players new to the game can buy Pathfinder books and use them with old D&D modules if they want, so it's (essentially) backwards-compatible enough to provide more utility than a 3.5e Boxed Set has for current players.

And, of course, all of this is profit for Paizo based on D&D's OGL...which they don't want to repeat--why give money to your #1 competitor at your own expense?

If they release a 5e OGL that's essentially the same as the current one, then they're admitting that they're giving up on trying to recapture and corner the market that D&D originated...and with the money Hasbro's likely to spend on 5e, I'm not sure that's acceptable to them.

I think WotC has put themselves into a no-win situation, and regardless of how great 5e might be, the brand may yet be doomed by its own prior actions.

Is there a full moon tonight? :)

Nope. :p

I'm sure I could make a general weight statement about each typical item that uses a slot, and then search through the Core Rulebook and find one that doesn't match that. :p

Except rings, I really hope all of those have a listed weight of "—." :)

Frodo sure acted like it was a lot heavier... ;)

The 5e and various "Martial V Magic" discussion threads have gotten me thinking about what I really don't like about PF/1e-3e style magic and how I would change it--if I could...

I was going to post this in that thread, but figured maybe it's better here? Not sure where it'd belong, really.

You may not like this, you may love Pathfinder's magic exactly as it is, and I'm not knocking it, but I wanted to put this "alternative" out there before I forget it. Good idea, bad idea, whatever, it is/was just an idea...

I'll try to explain it as best I can, but be aware that I've this thought for all of about 10 minutes now, and this is completely off the cuff, so there may well be gaps and holes and a lot of "issues" with it.

So, here's an attempt at a rough (very rough) sketch of what I'd like to do to create a "modular" or "free-form" system.

Goals:
Like 4e, Mage, Shadowrun and other systems, I want casters to be able to cast every round, so that they're always "casters" and always can wield magic to at least some extent if not to a massive effect every round.

I want casters to be able to draw from "raw" magic instead of "set" spells.

I want casters to learn the "basics" and then be able to mix and match them to create desired effects, and then (later?) add "augments" to the basics.

I think "spell power" should ramp up with level, but not to the dizzying effect in 1e-3e.

I want each caster class to have different benefits/abilities relating to how they employ and/or modify magic so that each class feels (more) unique.

I want magic to be seen as a living, mutable thing, not something locked into "reality stamps" that slam their imprint onto the world and then fade from it and memory.

Having said all of that, here are the basic system ideas:

Break magic into component parts

Combat Spells:

1. Select from:
Ball, Blast, Bolt, Burst, Cone, Dart, Ray

--all are untyped (for the moment)
--these would define the range, target (AC/REF/WIL) number of targets, and AoE (if any).
--I don't have anything set yet, but assume that each would be different from the others in the list but roughly correspond to something that already exists.

A "Ball" would be similar to a 3.5e/PF fireball in range and AoE, a "Bolt" would be like a lightning bolt, "Blast" & "Burst" like their 4e counterparts, "Dart" like magic missile and "Ray" like a scorching ray.

2. Select from:
Acid, Cold, Fire, Force, Lightning, Necrotic, Radiant (etc.)

--initial damage types are determined by your class selection, you learn additional by gaining levels/feats/class abilities (whatever)
--damage is a set progression (let's say 1d6/3 levels for now)
--damage is (as ^above^) + (linked attribute bonus) (INT for Wizards, CHA for Sorcerers, etc.)
--damage could be mixed types at the cost of 1d6 (and with a related feat/class ability, etc.)

3. (Augment)* Select from:
Blinded, Bouncing, Burning, Dazed, Deafened (etc.)

--*Augments must be learned (by feat or class ability), and "cost" 2d6 of damage per Augment, and there cannot be more than 1 Augment per spell (unless you take a feat, or have a class ability, etc.)

4. Cast your spell

Utility Spells:

1. Select from:
Burst, Mass, Party, Self, Target, Touch

--as above, (Combat Spells) I don't have the specifics set yet, but assume that each would be different from the others in the list but roughly correspond to something that already exists with the same descriptor for 'touch' etc...

2. Select from:
Alter, Armor, Disguise, Fly, Haste, Protect, Teleport, etc.)

--initial options are determined by your class selection
--duration is a set progression (let's say 1 round/3 levels for now)
--linked attribute bonus (INT for Wizards, CHA for Sorcerers, etc.) has a linked effect--so the "armor" boost would = (INT Bonus) for Wizards, (CHA Bonus) for Sorcerers; "Fly" would add (Linked Bonus) to your move speed, etc. Something like that, all the details aren't fully fleshed out in my mind atm.

3. (Augment)* Select from:
Extend, Quicken, (etc.)

--*Augments must be learned (by feat or class ability), and there cannot be more than 1 Augment per spell (unless you take a feat, or have a class ability, etc.)

4. Cast your spell

-=-=-
Spells per Day would be gone, you get limitless casting from the "components" and "augments" that you know, and you can learn more as you gain levels. Spells like Wish are gone, or maybe banished to something like a Ritual--costly, takes forever to cast, can't be done in combat, etc.

Each time you cast you can "customize" exactly what you want (from what you know) and you could use a total number of "augments" a total number of times per day/per encounter (whichever, haven't decided) equal to your Linked Attribute Bonus.

=-=

Meh, this took way longer to write it out than I thought, but so it goes.

To answer the 5e thread's question of what I'd like to see in 5e, this is close...sort of...in an unfinished way...

The irony, missed both here and on other forums, is that without WotC, and in particular their OGL, there would be NO Pathfinder, period.

Whether you love them or hate them, and indirectly as it may have been, Wizards gave many of the folks here at Paizo their start, and let them develop the skills they'd need to eventually create Pathfinder.

And, of course, without Wizards releasing the OGL then even if these people tried to form a company like Paizo, there'd be far less demand for an all-new d12 based fantasy system (or whatever) than there is for their OGL-compatible Pathfinder game that also happens to have picked up the 3/3.5e crowd that didn't move on to D&D 4e.

But, at it's core, Pathfinder only exists because of Wizards, and the decisions they made (again, consciously and accidentally). Had there been no OGL, had Wizards not allowed everyone to play in their sandbox, then Pathfinder would not be here as strong as it is today--in fact, it might not be here at all.

So, while I do love and support Paizo/Pathfinder, and I'm not "going away" from it any time soon, I started roleplaying with D&D and while I'm neither a rabid fan nor a zealous hater, I am a gamer, and as such I'm looking forward to seeing how 5e develops.

I've played D&D since forever, I play both Pathfinder and 4e now, and each edition has changed the game. Some changes I liked, some I didn't, but so it goes. Since I'm not the one creating the perfect game just for me, I'll deal with what's offered and go from there.

Hasbro is a company, a corporate entity that bought out a failing TSR and owns the rights to all of the IP that was D&D. For good or ill, it's theirs, and they bought it to make a profit, and a game, and they made both 3/3.5 and 4e, and soon 5e. Whether any of it ever meets the $50M or $100M mark that Hasbro expects remains to be seen, but have no doubt that just like any company, they bought the rights expecting to make a profit or else they wouldn't have bothered in the first place.

Call their efforts money-grabs if you will, or coldly calculated business practices or whatever, but had TSR been a better corporate entity then they'd still be around, in business, and even they would most likely be putting out new editions of D&D--as they did in the past or we would still be discussing only the original boxed set.

So, given that the game has always been evolving, I'm interested in seeing what Cook and Cordell can do with it, and what 5e will look like--it is, officially, the "future" of D&D whether we like it or not.

And, until it's out and we're playtesting it, we won't even know if we like it...

I'm thinking we've got more redundant 5e threads than we have solid info on 5e.

ValmarTheMad wrote:

Just an observation, but why do we have so many different 5e threads going? We really need to merge/purge all these various threads on 5e since they're all essentially the same discussion spread out across half of this 4e forum and I'm seeing a lot of overlap in each of them...

Because everyone needs their own thread with their own post with their own opinions at the top of the thread, or else how will anyone on the internet know what the truth is?

Must be it.

Just an observation, but why do we have so many different 5e threads going? We really need to merge/purge all these various threads on 5e since they're all essentially the same discussion spread out across half of this 4e forum and I'm seeing a lot of overlap in each of them...

ValmarTheMad wrote:

Yes

Yes
Yes

Of course, the second 'Yes' is out of my control as I've no idea if I'll be chosen to participate, but if chosen I definitely will. I've played every edition of D&D to date and have liked and disliked aspects of them all, I'm curious about and looking forward to what Monte Cook will do with 5e.

After a certain point the playtest will be open. Even if you're not selected for any closed playtesting, you'll still be able to try the game out and provide feedback prior to its release.

Then I look forward to participating and offering what feedback I can.

Haters will hate, fanboys will praise, but I'm going in with an open mind and as neutral a position as any gamer can take--maybe it'll suck, maybe it'll be fantastic, my guess is it'll be somewhere in the middle, but I'll let the game form my opinion, and not the other way around.