I can play a Bard? There's a gnomish racial write-up? I can cast 'cone of cold'?! All that's in the PHB? Holy CRAP, I got the wrong book! Everything makes sense now! I must have got the Hong Kong knock-off sent to me!
Isn't that kind of saying that games that differ from the job system in Final Fantasy are bad becuase they don't have the job system?
A rule system that could take as little as a paragraph. Why is this seemingly so offensive to you?
Again, with the not reading my posts! I have said several times in this thread that I want a Craft system that takes up much more then a paragraph to be added to the game.
It's just not nessisary for 4th edition to be a complete role playing game. Thanks for continuing to twist my words though, you've been entertainly good at it today.
More importantly, the PHB goes out of the way to say what skills and abilities you have very rigidly, so it's not even a question of adding on skills if you need them. A Rogue, as written now, cannot do things he could in 3X, because the rules explicitly state otherwise.
What the devil are you talking about now? You can do MORE in 4th edition with the skills available then you could in 3rd. Every character effectivly has full cross class ranks in every skill.
You still chose what skills you are trained in from a class skill list, just like in 3rd edition. The skill list has just been shortened by having several skills folded together.
And what exctly can a Rogue no longer do that they could in 3rd edition?
You can play the game as written perfectly well without a Crafting system, Bard, Half-orc, or any of the other previously core elements from prior editions.Unless, of course, I want to play one of those elements - something I could do, either because the rules either supported it directly, or simply allowed it to be handwaved, for the past 30 years.
4E not only doesn't have the rules to allow it, but actively has rules to DISALLOW it.
See the difference yet?
Vance, seriously, what the heck are you talking about? There are NO rules preventing you from adding classes, races, skills, or anything else you want to the game thru house rules.
You can add a new things EXACTLY the way you could for the last 30 years. Claiming that you cannot house rule playing a half orc is just untrue.
More specificlaly, there are rules in place to disallow any character currently possibly from having a skill in it, even if a such a skill was 'added' by the GM.
We're still waiting for that rule reference.
So, does WotC pay you? I'm just curious.I'm going to end this train here. Saying the 'GM can invent and expand' is not a defense of the rules as written. The RAW provides a small, rigid list of skills from which to choose and does not inherently allow any further inclusion, because of how the skill system is handled.
So this is your way of saying "Oops, I was wrong"? To posit that someone is a paid shill, throw down a flashbomb and cheese it?
Still waiting for that reference.
|
Actually, the word count for 4E's core three books is a little above HALF to TWO-THIRDS of the 3.5 version. Page count is pretty much the same. There is a lot more art in 4E, much more white space, and the font is fargin' 12 point as opposed to 10.
So you have counted to be sure? Can you give me some hard numbers then?
The game is not incomplete. You can play it as is.I can play a Bard? There's a gnomish racial write-up? I can cast 'cone of cold'?! All that's in the PHB? Holy CRAP, I got the wrong book! Everything makes sense now! I must have got the Hong Kong knock-off sent to me!
Now you are truly wandering off into the irrational zone. Bards are no longer core. They cannot be missing if they were removed intentionally. You cannot call core 4e incomplete because of an option you want that is not present. Is core 3.5 deficient because it is missing the elf class? I used to be able to play the elf class and now I cannot. That makes no sense whatsoever.
|
|
We're still waiting for that rule reference.So, does WotC pay you? I'm just curious.
I'm going to end this train here. Saying the 'GM can invent and expand' is not a defense of the rules as written. The RAW provides a small, rigid list of skills from which to choose and does not inherently allow any further inclusion, because of how the skill system is handled.
So you play by Gygax's old rule that if you change any rule you are no longer playing D&D?
Using that kind of logic and new edition would require dozens of classes, dozens of races, huge lists of magic items, and an OED sized MM.
Not really. Every previous edition of the game has had its core and its periphery. Sometimes, elements from the periphery of a previous edition gets promoted to core, but not everything. Psionics has never really been core, it's always been periphery and had generally been understood to be so by the customers.
The core is not the build up of content kept alive in an all inclusive set of rules. The core is simply the bare bones heart of the game which is always limited and then expanded upon.
In this we have some agreement. The core is not all-inclusive. But I would also say that 4e's core is a limited core, particularly when viewed on the heels of a more expansive one in 3e.
But I also find it interesting that 4e's core is intended to be expanded and not just supplemented. Does this mean that what agreement we have about what a core is (the heart of the game) is not what WotC sees as the core of 4e? If every new character class option appears in a Players Handbook #, are all of those part of the new core and thus 4e will be exactly the problem edition you talk about in your first paragraph - a monstrosity the size of the OED?
|
Maybe its my doddering old age but I still fail to see what is accomplished by people who don't (and won't) like 4E coming to the 4E boards just to argue with and accuse/belittle/ridicule those who do enjoy it. What is contributed?
If your happy wth 3.5 as is then play 3.5. It can't even be argued that your upset over lack of support since Paizo (and others) will be continuing to produce compatible products.
Let it go!
Your not going to drive Wotc out of business, nor are you going to succeed in getting them to recall 4E.
James it was all a joke, quick get the next 3.5 complete ubermunchkin book ready...
Mike you little prankster you, why I ought to... ***smacks upside head***
We're still waiting for that rule reference.So, does WotC pay you? I'm just curious.
I'm going to end this train here. Saying the 'GM can invent and expand' is not a defense of the rules as written. The RAW provides a small, rigid list of skills from which to choose and does not inherently allow any further inclusion, because of how the skill system is handled.
Hey look! A personal attack, implying that doppelganger is on the take and shouldn't be listened to because he takes evil corprate money. I'm just curious, but do you really think that's going to help your arguement?
And again, we're still waiting for any reference that says you cannot add to the skill list Vance. i'd rather like to know where you think that is.
The rules do not inherently prevent any further inclusion either. Specifically because of how the skill system works, you can add more skills to the list and place them on the class list of some or all existing classes. You can even require that a player take the Skill Training feat to be trained in the skill. You have considerable options when expanding the skill system.
|
|
But I also find it interesting that 4e's core is intended to be expanded and not just supplemented. Does this mean that what agreement we have about what a core is (the heart of the game) is not what WotC sees as the core of 4e? If every new character class option appears in a Players Handbook #, are all of those part of the new core and thus 4e will be exactly the problem edition you talk about in your first paragraph - a monstrosity the size of the OED?
This is the problem with a thirty year old game that has had thousands of volumes of material published for it. I think the move to an expanding core reflects the broad definition of "core" being used by those that claim 4e in incomplete. WotC has to react to fans of every conceivable race, class, skill, feat, bit, nit, and pick.
They took a bold step to streamline the core and they then took a step back and said it would then expand.
It is the best they could do given the nature of the game.
But I also find it interesting that 4e's core is intended to be expanded and not just supplemented. Does this mean that what agreement we have about what a core is (the heart of the game) is not what WotC sees as the core of 4e? If every new character class option appears in a Players Handbook #, are all of those part of the new core and thus 4e will be exactly the problem edition you talk about in your first paragraph - a monstrosity the size of the OED?
I think you and CWM may have put your finger on why some people are upset by the format of the new edition.
The initial Players handbook has a reduced number of classes compaired to the last one, but there will be a lot more coming over time.
Every person has their own favorite class, race, skill, feat, etc. If that didn't make it into the new edition right away, it puts them off the new edition because it doesn't feel 'core' anymore because it's not in the Players Handbook.
But the definition of core has changed from the generally understood one. The Players Handbook, DMG, and MM will each have several volumes, and all of them will be the core game. That doesn't sit well with people, because it's a break from tradition. The splat books like Martial Power and the various campaign guides will still be supplimental, but the definiton of core has been stretched.
The irony about this approach is that as you say, all the races, classes and such like Half-Orcs and Barbarians that have been core in the past will eventually be core again.
Strangely, this will fulfilly the traditional definition of core, because it will include all the things that were traditionally core, but it took changing the way you define core to make it happen.
|
So you play by Gygax's old rule that if you change any rule you are no longer playing D&D?We're still waiting for that rule reference.So, does WotC pay you? I'm just curious.
I'm going to end this train here. Saying the 'GM can invent and expand' is not a defense of the rules as written. The RAW provides a small, rigid list of skills from which to choose and does not inherently allow any further inclusion, because of how the skill system is handled.
To be fair to Gygax I believe what he actually said is if you stray too far you get away from the core conceits assumed by the D&D game and thus you start playing something else. I believe he is also cautioning against diverging from the rules overly much because the 1e DMG was designed to help codify a lot of ideas into a tournament worthy ruleset. I know the reference I am thinking of is in the 1e DMG, which I happen to reading right now, so I can drag up the full quote later.
When it comes to home games with a few house rules I think Gygax would have assumed those people were still playing D&D. Now if the same group were playing with the D&D ruleset in a exclusively sci-fi setting incorporating the Chartmaster critical hit charts, that might be something else entirely.
I will admit he might have said something much stronger than what I am thinking of or I am mis-remembering the quote. If so, I am happy to shown that.
But I get the point of what you are saying and I am not certain it accurately represents the situation. :) Vance is making a wild and highly biased claims, let's just call it what it is. He wants to tear apart the rules while claiming he is attempting to write material under the GSL. I am not certain he really understands the design conceits of 4e.
But the definition of core has changed from the generally understood one. The Players Handbook, DMG, and MM will each have several volumes, and all of them will be the core game. That doesn't sit well with people, because it's a break from tradition. The splat books like Martial Power and the various campaign guides will still be supplimental, but the definiton of core has been stretched.The irony about this approach is that as you say, all the races, classes and such like Half-Orcs and Barbarians that have been core in the past will eventually be core again.
Strangely, this will fulfilly the traditional definition of core, because it will include all the things that were traditionally core, but it took changing the way you define core to make it happen.
It is not only a break with tradition, but it is also fuel for complaint that the game is not "complete" as it is now. And with the intention being to incorporate previous core elements into the 4e core later, the complaint isn't completely unfounded.
4e does feel incomplete to me and the stated reason that certain elements aren't included because they weren't up to snuff (bard, druid) doesn't sit well with me when the warlord and warlock are sitting right there taking up space that could have been somebody else's.
But I think a major part of my sense that 4e is incomplete is embodied in the Monster Manual. It feels particularly spotty to me. How many books will I have to track down before lions, tigers, and (normal) bears (and sharks, and elephants, and so on...) are included in the core? They're excellent challenges for low-level parties and help provide tools to make a game world believable and not populated by just the fantastic.
|
|
And, to be frank, the ONLY thing that's come out is a blatant and hateful mix of fanboishness and elitism.
So it's hateful to favour one game over another?
Fanboishness? (God I hate made up words)
Is this having an opinion differing from yours? So far people have expressed repeatedly how they get the new game and don't agree with your interpretation, apparently this makes them elitist?
Would you prefer they were sycophants and agree without really doing so?
I repeat and will continue to repeat, why come to the 4E boards? If your only intent is to argue with genuine fans and knock their game of choice grow up.
If however you have something to contribute that will actually help the game grow and evolve please do so, otherwise I would suggest it might be a more constructive (I like this word, you'll probably see me use it a lot) use of your and our time to post stuff for the game you play and like.
|
|
It is not only a break with tradition, but it is also fuel for complaint that the game is not "complete" as it is now. And with the intention being to incorporate previous core elements into the 4e core later, the complaint isn't completely unfounded.
4e does feel incomplete to me and the stated reason that certain elements aren't included because they weren't up to snuff (bard, druid) doesn't sit well with me when the warlord and warlock are sitting right there taking up space that could have been somebody else's.
But I think a major part of my sense that 4e is incomplete is embodied in the Monster Manual. It feels particularly spotty to me. How many books will I have to track down before lions, tigers, and (normal) bears (and sharks, and elephants, and so on...) are included in the core? They're excellent challenges for low-level parties and help provide tools to make a game world believable and not populated by just the fantastic.
See this is a fair and justifiable criticism. Whilst I'm happy to wait for the other classes I can see why others are not, particularly long time players who have come to equate those classes with the game (come back my druidic friend).
However I totally agree with the paragraph I've quoted, of all the books the MM was the only one to actually disappoint me, lack of fluff and the exclusion of some (IMHO) essential creatures.
I am not certain he really understands the design conceits of 4e.I do.
I don't agree with most of them.
I want to see them actually defended, and not spoken of in with either biblical-like conceit, or a wash of lawyer-like double-talk, or blatant obfuscation, or - in some cases - outright lies.
For once, I want to see an actual, honest to god, real discussion on 4E's merits aside from fanbois telling me how they like WotC's giving it to them thrice monthly.
My being here is an attempt to see what makes 4E, with the limitations that I see, still preferable to other games to a substantial part of the market.
And, to be frank, the ONLY thing that's come out is a blatant and hateful mix of fanboishness and elitism.
Vance, I think we have had several productive discussions on 4th edition so far. We rarely see eye to eye, but it does happen. Going from this, I believe that our playing styles and what we expect the game are two different things.
To my group and I, 4th edition allows us these things:
1. A simple, clean game that allows us all to have fun
2. The introduction of a player who felt 3.5 was too complex, but likes these rules.
3. Less prep time for me as a DM.
4. A condensed list of skills. The 3.5 list is rather long. Too often people would fail miserably even on easy checks to comical effects. The addition of passive check rules are a nice touch.
5. An re-introduction to D&D to one of the best role players I've met.
6. The New and Updated Classes and races.
7. The New Mythology of the game. I stayed away from a lot of planar travel in 3.X becuase it was extra cumbersome.
8. Some of the changes to the monsters really challenge my players perceptions. Minions really help this.
And 9. If D&D insider ever gets up I will be able to play D&D with my origional gaming group. One of us lives in AL, GA, TX, CA, and TN.
Admittedly, these are all opinions, but these opinions are why I play this edition. Would I sitll happily play in a 3.5 game? Yes, but I would prefer 4th.
|
|
To my group and I, 4th edition allows us these things:1. A simple, clean game that allows us all to have fun
2. The introduction of a player who felt 3.5 was too complex, but likes these rules.
3. Less prep time for me as a DM.
4. A condensed list of skills. The 3.5 list is rather long. Too often people would fail miserably even on easy checks to comical effects. The addition of passive check rules are a nice touch.
5. An re-introduction to D&D to one of the best role players I've met.
6. The New and Updated Classes and races.
7. The New Mythology of the game. I stayed away from a lot of planar travel in 3.X becuase it was extra cumbersome.
8. Some of the changes to the monsters really challenge my players perceptions. Minions really help this.
This.
Also, 4e has allowed me to introduce players to the game that had been quite intimidated by the 3.5 rules.
|
|
I am not certain he really understands the design conceits of 4e.I do.
I don't agree with most of them.
I want to see them actually defended, and not spoken of in with either biblical-like conceit, or a wash of lawyer-like double-talk, or blatant obfuscation, or - in some cases - outright lies.
For once, I want to see an actual, honest to god, real discussion on 4E's merits aside from fanbois telling me how they like WotC's giving it to them thrice monthly.
My being here is an attempt to see what makes 4E, with the limitations that I see, still preferable to other games to a substantial part of the market.
And, to be frank, the ONLY thing that's come out is a blatant and hateful mix of fanboishness and elitism.
I edited my last response. I got really worked up and that is not fair to either of us. These boards are so touchy and it is hard to keep a level head some days but that is no excuse to forget civility. Let me know what you are looking for and what questions you have and I would happy to give you an idea on why I like the new edition.
Let's talk. Give me a topic and I would be happy to address it.
It is not only a break with tradition, but it is also fuel for complaint that the game is not "complete" as it is now. And with the intention being to incorporate previous core elements into the 4e core later, the complaint isn't completely unfounded.
4e does feel incomplete to me and the stated reason that certain elements aren't included because they weren't up to snuff (bard, druid) doesn't sit well with me when the warlord and warlock are sitting right there taking up space that could have been somebody else's.
But I think a major part of my sense that 4e is incomplete is embodied in the Monster Manual. It feels particularly spotty to me. How many books will I have to track down before lions, tigers, and (normal) bears (and sharks, and elephants, and so on...) are included in the core? They're excellent challenges for low-level parties and help provide tools to make a game world believable and not populated by just the fantastic.
See this is a fair and justifiable criticism. Whilst I'm happy to wait for the other classes I can see why others are not, particularly long time players who have come to equate those classes with the game (come back my druidic friend).
However I totally agree with the paragraph I've quoted, of all the books the MM was the only one to actually disappoint me, lack of fluff and the exclusion of some (IMHO) essential creatures.
(Humor)
All normal animals that are not livestock are now dead. No more half-fiend bovines.(Sorry Kieth).(/humor)
I found that the MM had several pages of generally gooey, tasty, mouth-watering marshmellow like fluff. I loved the pages dedicated to the Abyss and other things like the yaun-ti.
I really wish there was more.
|
|
So it's hateful to favour one game over another?Absolutely not. And if it's left at that, there wouldn't have been any problem. But, quite obviously, it's not been left at that.
Well if you poke a badger with a stick...
So far people have expressed repeatedly how they get the new game and don't agree with your interpretation, apparently this makes them elitist?If the only response they can muster is "You just don't GET it," implying that everyone who doesn't agree with them is lesser.. then, YES, it makes them elitist. Are you seriously going to tell me otherwise, or that it's clearly not happening?
In fairness I have seen this, but your not guilt free of returning that favour
I repeat and will continue to repeat, why come to the 4E boards? If your only intent is to argue with genuine fans and knock their game of choice grow up.By that logic, why are you on a Paizo board?
Um, because I'm in the 4E section looking to discuss that game in a positive and contributory way? Not trolling the 3E/Pathfinder boards looking to knock peoples game of choice at every opportunity?
[I came here for the purpose of 'learning what people liked about the game'. I'm not really getting that, aside from extremely sheep-minded comments that everything WotC does is excellent, etc... there's been precious little to discuss 4E's good points on their own merits.
"This rocks" isn't what I'm looking for. I want to know why. And that question, alone, results in these quasi-flame wars.
I beg to assert that you are learning what people like, you just don't agree with them, and seem to have a deep seated need that they agree with you.
[If however you have something to contribute that will actually help the game grow and evolve please do so, otherwise I would suggest it might be a more constructive (I like this word, you'll probably see me use it a lot) use of your and our time to post stuff for the game you play and like.Actually, I'm holding off posting new material (of which I have a goodling amount) while waiting for WotC to put up some legal or at least clarify a few things. Admittedly, I'm about to give up and just go O4E and have done with it, but I'm waiting to see...
I look forward to your contributions (told you I like this word), and I mean that sincerely. Its a better place all around when people work towards increasing others enjoyment of the game they love (or like if love is to strong).
I am not certain he really understands the design concepts of 4e.I do.
I don't agree with most of them.
I want to see them actually defended, and not spoken of in with either biblical-like conceit, or a wash of lawyer-like double-talk, or blatant obfuscation, or - in some cases - outright lies.
For once, I want to see an actual, honest to god, real discussion on 4E's merits aside from fanbois telling me how they like WotC's giving it to them thrice monthly.
You know Vance, that was almost funny. For the past several hours I have been trying to have a real conversation with you. I've been defending 4th edition without saying that it was perfect or descended from heaven.
My position has always been that 4th edition is a good and complete game system, which allows you to expand upon the solid foundation given very easily to include things like a Craft skill, and that this is good thing. I've even said several times that skills and races previous editions need to be added to the game, but that does not make the system itself incomplete.
Meanwhile, you have twisted my words, made personal attacks against the people in this thread, and in fact out right lied about what rules are in the game.
And yes Vance, your last message is a personal attack against everyone who has been disagreeing with you here today.
Saying that the rules prevent you from adding a new skill to the game is a lie, because the rules do not say that anywhere.
My being here is an attempt to see what makes 4E, with the limitations that I see, still preferable to other games to a substantial part of the market.And, to be frank, the ONLY thing that's come out is a blatant and hateful mix of fanboishness and elitism.
If that was your intention, then you need to tone down the attacks, stop taking people's words out of context, and have a rational discusion with us, which you have not been doing.
|
|
(Humor)
All normal animals that are not livestock are now dead. No more half-fiend bovines.(Sorry Keith).
(/humor)
I found that the MM had several pages of generally gooey, tasty, mouth-watering marshmellow like fluff. I loved the pages dedicated to the Abyss and other things like the yaun-ti.I really wish there was more.
Gods yes. Shows they can do it. I just wish they had done a bit more with regards to some of the more common encounters, ala kobold/goblin/orc.
As I said on the Necromancer boards though you could do far worse than Paizo's Classic Monsters revisted if your looking for great flavour text.
(Humor)
All normal animals that are not livestock are now dead. No more half-fiend bovines.(Sorry Keith).
(/humor)
I found that the MM had several pages of generally gooey, tasty, mouth-watering marshmellow like fluff. I loved the pages dedicated to the Abyss and other things like the yaun-ti.I really wish there was more.
Gods yes. Shows they can do it. I just wish they had done a bit more with regards to some of the more common encounters, ala kobold/goblin/orc.
As I said on the Necromancer boards though you could do far worse than Paizo's Classic Monsters revisted if your looking for great flavour text.
I actually only own Hook Mountain Massacre from Paizo (Prepares to be tortured), and I bought that becuase Logue wrote it. I appreciate the suggestion.
What did you think of the Goblin and Kobold articles in the magazines?
|
|
Granted, I have the personal skills of an Abrams tank... though it's let me get this far in life, and you would be surprised how an Abrams tank gets what it wants eventually. :)
And I think you'd be surprised at how often an Abrams tank gets blown up.
Seriously, if you're trying to get answers, you do need to work on your approach. Hysterical statements, claiming everyone else is lying, etc do not elicit answers, they elicit fire and acid as they're the only things to kill what you appear to be behaving as. And I say is as someone who isn't that keen on 4E, but you're approaching Razz in terms of vitriol and that is not helpful in trying to get answers. Relentless is one thing, insults are something else entirely.
It is not only a break with tradition, but it is also fuel for complaint that the game is not "complete" as it is now. And with the intention being to incorporate previous core elements into the 4e core later, the complaint isn't completely unfounded.4e does feel incomplete to me and the stated reason that certain elements aren't included because they weren't up to snuff (bard, druid) doesn't sit well with me when the warlord and warlock are sitting right there taking up space that could have been somebody else's.
I can certainly understand the reasoning behind your feelings. As Horus said, it's a fair critism. If they hadn't told us right up front that there would be additional volumes of the 3 core books and they would be core, I'd feel the same way you do.
Having the Bard and Druid left out in favor of new classes is really annoying. It would eb even more annoying it the Warlock and Warlord weren't amazing new classes that I really want to play.
It bothers me that they didn't get the Druid and Bard finshed because they are so iconic, but I'm also glad that a broken or half finished class didn't get printed. The Bard in 3rd edition was such a huge dissapointment. I want them to get the new Bard right, and if having to wait nine months is the price well I'm willing to pay for it.
But I think a major part of my sense that 4e is incomplete is embodied in the Monster Manual. It feels particularly spotty to me. How many books will I have to track down before lions, tigers, and (normal) bears (and sharks, and elephants, and so on...) are included in the core? They're excellent challenges for low-level parties and help provide tools to make a game world believable and not populated by just the fantastic.
The Monster Manual does have too many holes in the normal animal category. They did a great job of improving old monsters like Orcs, Goblins, and Kobalds, but they did a horrible job on the normal animals.
In the end, I guess I'm looking at the system itself as being very complete, as opposed to the individual things like whether a shark is stated up. I can stat up a shark or bear pretty easily, but if the underlying system was broken I wouldn't be able to.
|
|
However I totally agree with the paragraph I've quoted, of all the books the MM was the only one to actually disappoint me, lack of fluff and the exclusion of some (IMHO) essential creatures.Honestly, I had the opposite experience, but I admit it was because my expectations for the MM had been kept low for as long as MMs had come out. I really didn't expect much more than stat-blocks. Yeah, it needed more fluff and more mundane things, to be sure, but that wasn't TOO different from what we got previously.
Sadly true, but I like to live in hope ;-)
I'm definately in the camp that 3.5 was a pain to deal with for what it gave you, particularly if you're the DM. But I'm curious as to what you think was simplified overall, for the better?
I think character creation (The standard array and point buy versions) , skills (see below), DM prep time, Monster Level VS CR, and magic items levels are some of the things that they simplified for the better.
This isnt a simplification, but I enjoy the tactical combat of 4e. I often think of it more like chess than other editions. I did play clerics of the red knight in FR for a reason.
I'm in the camp that would have liked more skills, but handled in a much more thematic sense rather than the 'rule for every occaision' that we got in 3X that's largely kept in 4E. I doubt skills would have been as much of a pain if they weren't, basically, introducing at least one new rule per skill.
I like in 4e that one skill can be used to accomplish multiple pre-defined meaningful objectives in the game now. You can still have a wide berth of skilled characters, but not so many skills that you can never be useful in more than a handful. In 3e, you didnt get enough skill points as a wizard, cleric, or any of them that got 2 basic points per level imho.
|
|
I actually only own Hook Mountain Massacre from Paizo (Prepares to be tortured), and I bought that becuase Logue wrote it. I appreciate the suggestion.
You should think about grabbing some of the Gamemastery/Pathfinder modules for conversion, I might hesitate to suggest the AP's considering the work, but if it doesn't bother you.....
Nick's great, very much in line with with my own line of storytelling. I like it dark and ugly, all the better to highlight my PC's heroism and nobility.
What did you think of the Goblin and Kobold articles in the magazines?
I really liked these a lot and this is where Wotc need to be going, in the books/adventures as well as on line.
The kobold stuff was great, but personally (and maybe controversially) I preferred the Gobbo article, I really enjoyed the alchemy stuff.
|
|
Seriously, if you're trying to get answers, you do need to work on your approach. Hysterical statements, claiming everyone else is lying, etc do not elicit answers, they elicit fire and acid as they're the only things to kill what you appear to be behaving as.Depends on the person and what I'm replying to. Yeah, there were a couple of posts that I got sick of something, and it shows.. but, don't forget that there was something to get sick of.
And, I admit that I was wrong for lettin' loose the cannon a bit too much, it wasn't like I wasn't ALREADY getting shelled as well, in my defense.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, the collectible mug AND the mouse mat.
If you've got mad, walk away from the computer and come back when you're less mad. Or write the entire vitriolic, snarky post you really want to to put the other fellow in his proper place. And then delete it. It really does make you feel better but doesn't napalm the thread.
I actually only own Hook Mountain Massacre from Paizo (Prepares to be tortured), and I bought that becuase Logue wrote it. I appreciate the suggestion.You should think about grabbing some of the Gamemastery/Pathfinder modules for conversion, I might hesitate to suggest the AP's considering the work, but if it doesn't bother you.....
Nick's great, very much in line with with my own line of storytelling. I like it dark and ugly, all the better to highlight my PC's heroism and nobility.
What did you think of the Goblin and Kobold articles in the magazines?I really liked these a lot and this is where Wotc need to be going, in the books/adventures as well as on line.
The kobold stuff was great, but personally (and maybe controversially) I preferred the Gobbo article, I really enjoyed the alchemy stuff.
Yeah I liked making a friend of mine weep at the table with the choice I forced his 3.5 Pally into. ^_^
My not so local, but friendly barnes and nobles has some of the Pathfinder stuff. Next time I drop by I will.
|
|
Seriously, if you're trying to get answers, you do need to work on your approach. Hysterical statements, claiming everyone else is lying, etc do not elicit answers, they elicit fire and acid as they're the only things to kill what you appear to be behaving as.Depends on the person and what I'm replying to. Yeah, there were a couple of posts that I got sick of something, and it shows.. but, don't forget that there was something to get sick of.
And, I admit that I was wrong for lettin' loose the cannon a bit too much, it wasn't like I wasn't ALREADY getting shelled as well, in my defense.
It can be difficult to be a lone voice defending a viewpoint so I can understand getting defensive. 8-)
We could do with a good thread debating mechanics & feel, as well as doing a bit of comparison between all editions, but unfortunately far too much mudslinging and bad blood has occurred at this time for that to be realistic.
Maybe we can start a thread titled **Warning comparative criticism of D&D editions chainmail to 4th inside. Enter at own risk.*** 8-))
said some stuff
I know you have said that you have written alot of stuff, and are waiting on something to do with legalize, but is there anything that you can show us in regards to your writing for 4th edition?
|
|
We could do with a good thread debating mechanics & feel, as well as doing a bit of comparison between all editions, but unfortunately far too much mudslinging and bad blood has occurred at this time for that to be realistic.
Maybe we can start a thread titled **Warning comparative criticism of D&D editions chainmail to 4th inside. Enter at own risk.*** 8-))
I would love it, coming from my direction, and not really having any religious-love for any particular version of the game. (I'm old and jaded, dammit, I'll yell about 'em all!)
But, yeah, it would disintegrate very quickly, I'm sure. Gaming seems to be a very personal thing to a lot of people - disturbingly so.
I would enjoy a thread like this as well, so long as it stayed civil. That can be hard sometimes, I agree. I have played this game for over 23 years, from red box to 4e, and it would be nice to see how others feel about the evolution of the game in a respectful manner.
|
|
said some stuffI know you have said that you have written alot of stuff, and are waiting on something to do with legalize, but is there anything that you can show us in regards to your writing for 4th edition?
You also mention some work on Pulp OGL material. I am pretty familiar with a lot of third party work and I would like to know what you worked on. Not because I want to judge you (honestly) but it would be nice to have some perspective. It would be nice to know where you are coming from with your design ideals.
|
|
We could do with a good thread debating mechanics & feel, as well as doing a bit of comparison between all editions, but unfortunately far too much mudslinging and bad blood has occurred at this time for that to be realistic.
Maybe we can start a thread titled **Warning comparative criticism of D&D editions chainmail to 4th inside. Enter at own risk.*** 8-))
I would love it, coming from my direction, and not really having any religious-love for any particular version of the game. (I'm old and jaded, dammit, I'll yell about 'em all!)
But, yeah, it would disintegrate very quickly, I'm sure. Gaming seems to be a very personal thing to a lot of people - disturbingly so.
People do love their hobbies, sometimes to much.
I'd like to reiterate what Azigen said about seeing some of your stuff, even if only a little that you feel comfortable posting. I post on lots of boards and encourage people to contribute on all of them, I also feel that criticism is better received when people see you also contributing (damn I cannot get away from that word) 8-).
Don't worry about beng jaded, it could be worse....I find myself becoming more preachy (sickening, I've become my father).
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If a GM can add a craft skill he certainly is able to add it to any given class and even *gasp* give PCs more skill choices in order to accommodate the new skills.But that would destroy the all-important balance of the game! *gasp* That's verboten.. the WotC law-ninjas will come get you. More seriously, each class rigidly defines your skills for you , and that's all you get.
Of course you can override the entire book, but, at that point, you're overriding the entire book, nae? How far do you house-rule on a system before you decide it's not the same game anymore?
The class system rigidly defines the skills available in order to insure that all the classes have something to do outside of combat. Choosing to put craft skills on top of that does not invalidate the concept. I consider it highly probably that WotC will, at some point, decide to add crafting in a Splat book and I suspect it'll work just fine when they choose to do so.
you fling around phrases like 'intellectual dishonesty' with wild abandon but it often seems to me that your the one who is willing to go to significant lengths to discredit the game.
|
|
I know you have said that you have written alot of stuff, and are waiting on something to do with legalize, but is there anything that you can show us in regards to your writing for 4th edition?I -really- want to wait, at least until I see what Goodman Games is really doing. I'm not really looking about financial issues in terms of selling this stuff (I give away most stuff on my site), but I am concerned about legal liability these days. I'm just not sure what's SAFE with the current climate. :(
I did call WotC to ask.. but they don't even know yet. A lot of this discussion is still is going through marketing and legal, and the 'creative forces' have almost no say in it. To quote an anon WotC staffer doing his best Sallah voice, "It's as if Lorraine has returned".
So, I hope you can understand my hesistation, and bear with a little longer.
Lawyers, can't live with them, can't boil them in oil without being taken to court..
Not really. Every previous edition of the game has had its core and its periphery. Sometimes, elements from the periphery of a previous edition gets promoted to core, but not everything. Psionics has never really been core, it's always been periphery and had generally been understood to be so by the customers.
Using that kind of logic and new edition would require dozens of classes, dozens of races, huge lists of magic items, and an OED sized MM.
Well psionics were arguably core in 1E since the rules (limited though they were) were in the DMG. Not that many people used them or anything - they were pretty busted. The worst part being you had to get unbelievably fluky just to get psionics and if you did get them then you were so uber compared to the other players it was kind of sick. Not that play balance was a big thing back then but most DMs drew the line here.