Ok, I've just been reading a lot of aggressive posts on here lately and I just want to know... what gives?
A lot of anger has been voiced over the beta not incorporating a lot of suggested changes in the Alpha. I would encourage anyone who was offended by this to take this opportunity to apologize for anything they've said on the forum.
Another sore spot is the seeming lack of response to particular ideas, their own or otherwise. Please, please, please understand that you are being given a chance that has never before been given to fans of D&D. What doesn't help is puerile arguments such as "this is broken, fix it". We're all here to help Jason and Paizo make the game better. That means that if enough people complain about something not working with valid criticism, playtest reports, and alternative suggestions, then they will address it.
I don't know why anyone would assume the fans are not being listened to. THAT was the whole point of putting out the 400+ page Beta book so it can be played from end-to-end.
I haven't complained about the issues you mentioned, but in response to some of those complaints I did get a bit defensive in my posting.
If I came off as aggressive, I apologize.
You sound like a straight-up guy Jal. I always read your posts as very level-headed and contributory.
I apologize for nt bringing anything to the table... I'll just wait to see the final PFRPG and take what I like and change what I don't. I'll trust's paizo's rule-judgement and my own to change it.
Peace and role in the forums!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I haven't complained about the issues you mentioned, but in response to some of those complaints I did get a bit defensive in my posting.
If I came off as aggressive, I apologize.
Yeah Jal, actually, I've been thinking that next time I start a PbP I'd like to invite you, Nameless, and Mikuze ... Mizuke? ... Makazu? ... damn, and I should be good at vaguely Japanese sounding names. You know who I mean.
I agree that there seems to be too much hostility around here lately. I don't post often...mostly lurk, but I do think that things have been tense. Not so much as in the near past, maybe, but not like they have been before...
Anyway, it has been stated over and over by Paizo staff that the Beta was not really intended to incorporate all the feedback that has already been generated. Now that the Beta is out, they can really focus on all the feedback that has come before and the feedback that is still to come and make all the changes that are necessary. Grumbling about it, throwing accusations around, or simply stating that everything is horrible doesn't seem all that constructive to me.
I expect we will see more interaction as time goes on, now that the Beta has been completed. And I also think we will see all these suggestions and thoughts taken into account.
|
I haven't complained about the issues you mentioned, but in response to some of those complaints I did get a bit defensive in my posting.
If I came off as aggressive, I apologize.
Yeah Jal, actually, I've been thinking that next time I start a PbP I'd like to invite you, Nameless, and Mikuze ... Mizuke? ... Makazu? ... damn, and I should be good at vaguely Japanese sounding names. You know who I mean.
I'd be honored. I've been considering joining a PbP, but getting in early enough can be tricky. Let me know when and hold a spot for me.
Oh, and thanks for the compliments; unasked for but nonetheless welcome.
Creative Director
|
In hindsight, we probably should either have been more clear about the purpose of the Alpha, or we should have just not released information about the Alpha at all. A public Alpha is, as far as I know, VERY unusual, and I suspect a lot of folk got mixed up between the differences between what the two are.
Alpha = the initial gearing up for the product. Unfinished rules, lots of wahoo and crazy, stretching the legs. Not necessarily a complete game.
Beta = a playable set of rules that incorporates the Alpha and tosses out early ideas that are TOO crazy, but retains the majority of the Alpha stuff.
The intention has always been to focus the vast majority of the playtest and changes and such to the Beta; the Alpha was more of a preview into the process, and the reaction we got back was, frankly, overwhelming. We had over 25,000 folk download it. Personally, I was thinking that number would be a tenth of that amount before we went live with the Alpha.
Anyway... yeah; the Beta's going to be the more organized and, honestly, productive section of the entire playtest. It's also worth remembering that we're STILL rolling it out. We've got things started with Ability Scores and races, of course, but until Gen Con UK is done and we've got our convention season all wrapped up in a week or two... we aren't going to be able to do TOO much in the feedback category. In fact... for the next week or two, it'll pretty much just be me.
In other words, patience is the name of the game for now. We've got nearly a year to go over the rules, in any case. No need to get every change in there by the end of the month! :-)
It's one of the problems with asking the fanbase to play-test the game.
You'll have players who hate the changes right off the bat, and will argue to have them altered.
You'll have players who love the changes and won't stop arguing that the changes should remain.
Another large problem is you'll have groups who are split down the middle. Truthfully, I would have to put myself in the first group. I don't normally feel the need to make my opinions on a game known, but in my current gamming group I know of 2 DM's who are going to be using the changes...hence why I'm so eager to alter what I don't like while I can.
Though even if I don't come off agressive with my opinions, there will be others (namely catagory two) who will argue. And one inherrit problem with D'n'D is that alot of what's balanced boils down to situation, so some players will just not accept that XYZ needs changing (since XYZ never proves a problem in their game).
And alought a minor issue, it's one that also adds to this, some players just plain hate (the kind that won't even have a reason to dislike) and others who love it unconditionally (changing the game even if XYZ has never even been a problem before).
Throw all these together and you get an aggreesive forum. Saddly, it can't be avoided.
Ok, I've just been reading a lot of aggressive posts on here lately and I just want to know... what gives?
What you have to understand is that the polite and erudite discusssion found on the Paizo boards was something "unnatural." A bizarre aberation that could not endure.
Nature, as she is prone to doing, has drestroyed the unnatural contruction, and restored the normal state of affairs. Thus the natural fawna of the Internet is migrating into theis teritorn.
|
I'd like to say sorry for.. well.. I don't know.. anything really..
The folks over at Paizo are doing a great job, and I can't wait to actually play PFRPG (i'm stuck in the current campaign.. we're level 15 and the DM expressed the very real possibility in going to 40+.. help .. me..)
With all that aside, i'd like to add that Paizo drinks Awesomejuice..
Beta = a playable set of rules that incorporates the Alpha and tosses out early ideas that are TOO crazy, but retains the majority of the Alpha stuff.
One thing I am concerned about is that in your and Jasons posts I continue to see a trend where you say that there are things that are TOO CRAZY in the Alpha and now the Beta. True, there are some abilities which are/were overpowered, but I think you haven´t gone far enough yet for a lot of the classes, the spells and the combat mechanics.
I just don´t want to see some many good ideas go to waste, just because they somehow seem to be too radical. I also understand that backwards compatibility is a important goal, but fixing the most important issues should be just as important.
I just find it more important to, say, fix the monk by radically reworking the class than the fact that an old monk stat block out of some adventure isn´t working anymore.
Or to do a complete rework of Save or Die/Suck spells, because in the current format classes with bad will saves fall far too easily to them. That last point wouldn´t even damage backwards compatibility at all.
|
|
Part of it seems like the classic "give an inch, take a mile" thing. Paizo gave the public a voice, and that led to a very vocal minority making many entitled and inflammatory threads about what is OBVIOUSLY WRONG.
Another part is probably just that the community has grown. There's been lots of success for Paizo lately, and new people being drawn in, and that's great, but even if the percentage of angry posters and crappy threads is the same, that still means a greater quantity of them.
I don't think the percentage is the same, though, because it seems like there are new people that come in and post without "lurking" at all to see if there's already a discussion on the topic or it was already addressed in some way, etc.
I personally thought that the Wizards boards were elitist and self-important. When I first came here, it was like a breath of fresh air because it was so casual, open and friendly. Unfortunately, it feels like we've outgrown the "honor system".
(I wish there were more Pathfinder goons.)
Throw all these together and you get an aggreesive forum. Saddly, it can't be avoided.
I completely understand that you can't please everyone, ESPECIALLY, with game systems that seem to always have house rules. But is it so hard for some to understand that the object of the playtest process is about presenting ideas and getting feedback. The discussion and hopefully, any playtest evidence provided will give a better sense of what works and what doesn't.
I just don´t want to see some many good ideas go to waste, just because they somehow seem to be too radical. I also understand that backwards compatibility is a important goal, but fixing the most important issues should be just as important.
If you want people to realize X is a problem, you have to demonstrate what X does, how it affects the game, give examples playtesting X and then playtesting solution Y. And the most fun part... write it all up.
Why? Because that's how a professional does it, especially if the idea is radical. This is a book that Paizo wants to publish as their premier product that will last them a few years in the marketplace. If I were in Erik's position, I certainly wouldn't want any ideas in the game that were not playtested well.
If you want people to realize X is a problem, you have to demonstrate what X does, how it affects the game, give examples playtesting X and then playtesting solution Y. And the most fun part... write it all up.
Why? Because that's how a professional does it, especially if the idea is radical. This is a book that Paizo wants to publish as their premier product that will last them a few years in the marketplace. If I were in Erik's position, I certainly wouldn't want any ideas in the game that were not playtested well.
Of course. That´s why we are here, to playtest and to make suggestions.
But if the final product isn´t a big step forward for the 3rd edition, because everybody was too gun-shy to fix the necessary things, then Paizo and us will also have failed.
|
|
I just don´t want to see some many good ideas go to waste, just because they somehow seem to be too radical. I also understand that backwards compatibility is a important goal, but fixing the most important issues should be just as important.If you want people to realize X is a problem, you have to demonstrate what X does, how it affects the game, give examples playtesting X and then playtesting solution Y. And the most fun part... write it all up.
Why? Because that's how a professional does it, especially if the idea is radical. This is a book that Paizo wants to publish as their premier product that will last them a few years in the marketplace. If I were in Erik's position, I certainly wouldn't want any ideas in the game that were not playtested well.
Agreed. It is all well and good to read the book and find mathematical problems, or assume you did. But nothing replaces sitting around a table (or PbP) with other real people and getting to know the ins and outs of the system. A car designer can whip up some awesome technical drawings, but it is pointless after a time to argue their merit without building a prototype and driving it.
But if the final product isn´t a big step forward for the 3rd edition, because everybody was too gun-shy to fix the necessary things, then Paizo and us will also have failed.
So why do you think people will be gunshy? Maybe I missed it.
|
|
Another thing for people to remember is that even though Paizo is trying to fix some of the glaring issues in 3.5 they still want it to be backward compatible (I do not know if I would personally stick with that goal if I were doing it) and so many of the changes people suggest are not going to work out in the compatibility department.
Someone else somewhere said (I wish I could insert a name here too) that many people have houserules they want included and have gotten upset when Paizo did not jump right on them. Well, we all have house rules and what a game it would be if we all took our houserules and included them in the game. Now,that might be a fun experiement but probably not a great way to create the next generation of rules.
Another thing for people to remember is that even though Paizo is trying to fix some of the glaring issues in 3.5 they still want it to be backward compatible (I do not know if I would personally stick with that goal if I were doing it) and so many of the changes people suggest are not going to work out in the compatibility department.
Someone else somewhere said (I wish I could insert a name here too) that many people have houserules they want included and have gotten upset when Paizo did not jump right on them. Well, we all have house rules and what a game it would be if we all took our houserules and included them in the game. Now,that might be a fun experiement but probably not a great way to create the next generation of rules.
I completely agree. Usually when I make a houserule, I do it for one of the following reasons. Note: It's not always because I thought the original mechanic didn't work.
#1 Make the campaign easier/more difficult (you don't die at -10, you start making saves)
#2 Change something for personal taste (aka "because I don't like X" reason)
#3 Offer a different mechanic for something to make the campaign feel different (no sorcerors, spell points for wizards)
|
I completely agree. Usually when I make a houserule, I do it for one of the following reasons. Note: It's not always because I thought the original mechanic didn't work.
#1 Make the campaign easier/more difficult (you don't die at -10, you start making saves)
#2 Change something for personal taste (aka "because I don't like X" reason)
#3 Offer a different mechanic for something to make the campaign feel different (no sorcerors, spell points for wizards)
aye indeed
no rules are perfect and we all give and takebut we all want a solid product in the end
and i think James and Jason were clear in which from Alpha 3 to Beta there would be minimal changes... Beta 3 was the true ground for playtesting...
aside of that i do apologize for those i have agraviated (specially those who like 3.5 magic :P)
I believe that some people are overly aggressive in regards to their posts and suggestions here because they want to do their utmost to "game the system" to ensure that their favorite races and classes come out on top and that whatever they dislike gets "nerfed". But what's even worse is whenever someone makes good suggestions but completely eradicates any chance of being taken seriously by their peers because they aren't diplomatic enough or logical enough to make a persuasive argument. All that does is reinforce negative stereotypes about role-players and causes good ideas to be thrown to the wayside, regardless of merit.
All in all, I don't envy the folks that are charged with the onerous task of going through these Forums in an attempt to find genuine, balanced suggestions that will help refine the Pathfinder RPG. It seems a lot like digging for Pirate Treasure with no treasure map. Perhaps things will look up once we move past the first few chapters of the book.
|
I was surprised by the lack of changes from Alpha to Beta, and have posted my disappointment, though I hope that was not perceived as aggressive, if so, I do apologize.
Part of the problem I believe stems from Paizo opening the Alpha Playtest to the public and asking for contributions. It was repeatedly said that the designers were listening and would consider the changes.
However, considering the sheer amount of discussion that happened on the forums it was surprising how little actually did change. After the big push about the community being incorporated into the design, the community's voice was almost totally ignored.
Some darn few, and minor changes did happen. But to be honest most of the big wild way out there ideas stayed in there with most of the criticism and ideas about them being ignored.
If there had been some contribution at all on the forums from the designers it would have helped. But the areas of design suggestions and such were almost barren of official paizo folks.
I think all that led to a let down when the Beta was unveiled. People had been led to expect to see BIG changes, some even incorporating community ideas. But in the end Beta was almost a rehash of Alpha. The excitement people felt about being able to have their ideas heard turned to disappointment and anger when they realized no on was really listening at all.
IF the designers were listening they did a very poor job of letting anyone know. The end result is that a lot of people who thought Pathfinder was going to be "our" game, that is a game the players actually want to play gave way to the realization that Pathfinder is actually going to be a game that Jason designed and the Paizo staff has decided they like.
I honestly do not believe it was a misunderstanding of what an Alpha and a Beta is, but rather building expectations and not following through on them.
This is the first time I have been disappointed with Paizo. But I can understand those decisions and just wish they had been communicated better.
As it stands I am still happy with the Beta and can certainly live with it (except the CMB needs clarifying- not changing, but better defining).
|
|
I'd like to invite you, Nameless, and Mikuze ... Mizuke? ... Makazu? ... damn, and I should be good at vaguely Japanese sounding names. You know who I mean.
You're referring to Mikaze? Good show. Nothing but good things to say about Mikaze and Nameless.
|
|
Honestly, I think it will pass.
I've noticed that some of the posters who I'd rank *high* on the hostility list are also those who were hostile in other forums to 3.x, then hostile to 4Ed, and now hostile, here, to many of the ideas in PFRPG. Eventually the community as a whole tires of their antics and like most "bullies" they silently fade into oblivion when their ability to scream and rant louder than the crowd fades.
What's odd is that it seems to be directed less towards the system itself and more towards the developers whom these people feel have a personal vendetta against them or their ideas.
The majority of poster frustration seems to stem from the egocentric assumption that every idea a poster has is the best, and thus is how the game should be played - often to the benefit of their own personal playstyle.
Having said all though; maybe it should have been more clear from the beginning that this wasn't a design by commitee, but a design by reasonable feedback.
Either way, we're all just voices in the crowd and if we're lucky to playtest something, document it, and provide coherent feedback we may see one of our changes in the final document. I just wish more people wouldn't take it out on others when their change isn't there.
|
|
I agree that this aggression will pass. And yeah I know I am one of the a&+#*%#s people get tired of. So along those lines let me comment that I do not think anyone on here is a bully, but rather like me on occasion, have issues with stress (money-work) that put us on edge. I for one am tired of being stressed out and trying to chill and relax and take a more laid back approach to things. So expect to see an entirely different Krome in the future. And if you see me being an a+@%~$* again you have my permission to slap me up side the head and say "Stop being an a$*+@&+!"
Yes some people take it all too personal and some are set that their opinion is the only one possible because they are god's gift to RPGs. But most of the topics I have been on roll past that and really work out a consensus idea (or group of ideas).
See, I think part of the problem is that there was no feedback on these topics by the developers. 99% of the crap on those topics would have been stopped by a developer popping on saying "Good idea but we can't do that because XXX." Just like most other issues on this forum, good communications from Paizo usually fixes any concerns or problems. There just was no feedback from the staff on these topics. Now sure I don't expect them to monitor every single topic and every single post, but I just don't remember seeing them anywhere. There was no guidance, no suggestions, no response.
That is very unlike Paizo.
But in the long run I fully expect to see everyone cool off and try to contribute again and no matter what I expect to see people supporting Paizo. I know I will.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
You're referring to Mikaze? Good show. Nothing but good things to say about Mikaze and Nameless.I'd like to invite you, Nameless, and Mikuze ... Mizuke? ... Makazu? ... damn, and I should be good at vaguely Japanese sounding names. You know who I mean.
Yes. Mikaze. I'm not starting anything right now but I think Jal Dorak, Nameless, and Mikaze would be a great core group when I get something together. :-)
|
|
Now, recognizing that Paizo is run by a bunch of intelligent, talented people, I want to say the following in regards to Krome's post:
Perhaps, and this has been alluded to in terms of numbers by Paizonians, Paizo had simply failed to realize the size of the reaction to the playtest. Jason and Co can only respond to so many threads before they start diminishing the quality of their main jobs. And as the work piled up on Jason, he didn't have the time to address the massive amounts of unexpected threads with a friendly "Thanks/No Thanks/Good/Bad".
I personally don't blame Paizo for something like this, but some others on the boards have taken it as a personal indictment or some sort of deception by Paizo. I think they were reasonably clear that they were soliciting feedback for the Alpha, but the main flux of the initiative was to gauge the reaction of the proposed changes.
Yes. Mikaze. I'm not starting anything right now but I think Jal Dorak, Nameless, and Mikaze would be a great core group when I get something together. :-)You're referring to Mikaze? Good show. Nothing but good things to say about Mikaze and Nameless.I'd like to invite you, Nameless, and Mikuze ... Mizuke? ... Makazu? ... damn, and I should be good at vaguely Japanese sounding names. You know who I mean.
Hey, I'm game. My posting availability can get erratic sometimes, but I'm definitely up for a new game.
Thanks for the offer, man.
|
Now that is just cruel, confusing Tarren Dei like that!
Hey, I'm game. My posting availability can get erratic sometimes, but I'm definitely up for a new game.Thanks for the offer, man.
Hey, the name/name thing gives me an idea for a character though. May be a bit too offbeat though.
Actually it is too offbeat.
Guy whose twin sister, with whom he was very close, dies. He can't cope with the loss, so his personality splits. He spends half his time as himself, and the other half passing himself off as his sister. He multiclasses(rogue/sorcerer) so that the female persona roughly follows the same career path as his actual sister(sorc).
Kind of hesitant to run with this idea because I've already got a crossdressing sorcerer in that Riddleport NPC batch I'm working on for the forum. People might start to talk.
In hindsight, we probably should either have been more clear about the purpose of the Alpha[snip]
Alpha = the initial gearing up for the product. Unfinished rules, lots of wahoo and crazy, stretching the legs. Not necessarily a complete game.
Beta = a playable set of rules that incorporates the Alpha and tosses out early ideas that are TOO crazy, but retains the majority of the Alpha stuff.
The intention has always been to focus the vast majority of the playtest and changes and such to the Beta; the Alpha was more of a preview into the process...
Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking of the Beta as being the phase where You basically have all the features in place and are just trying to iron out the final kinks. Heck, many of the video game betas/demo versions I've seen lately are just that (though that may be due to laziness on the part of the developers of those games).
In any event, I'm glad to hear that we can expect more feedback to be considered during the beta. I must admit, I was among those who though more of the alpha feedback would have been included in the beta, but it seems that was due to a misunderstanding of the intent of each phase.
I would like to echo the sentiment expressed above about Jason/Paizo giving the boards/playtesters more feedback on why things can/can't be done, etc. Obviously Con-season and the rush to get the Beta out prevented a great deal of potential feedback, but even just a running, stickied topic noting popular ideas that pass/fail and a short explanation would help to avert a lot of consternation and wasted time on the community's part.
One such post on why Idea X doesn't work or why Idea Y is being included would stem the dozen or so threads that crop up for any popular/controversial idea... That would be a dozen fewer topics for Jason to have to review down-the-road too so the time-savings might make up for the time spent and with interest. :)
Anyway, have fun at GenCon UK. Any chance I'll see any Paizo folks at DragonCon this coming weekend? (I'm the elven prince with the green leather surcoat and way-too-much equipment.)
So why do you think people will be gunshy? Maybe I missed it.
Just a feeling I have gotten when reading Jasons and James posts. Maybe it´s just the phrasing of "radical" ideas in the Alpha and Beta, which indicates to me that they rather want something less radical as the final product.
Which ( for me ) wouldn´t cut it, because a good lot of aspects of the high levels are pretty broke. And some things of the lower levels. ^^
|
|
This is copied over from my post in the Am i seeing things through rose-tinted glasses topic over in the off-topic forum
Yep ive noticed it as well. Ive always held the view that if you wouldent say it to someones face in real life then dont post it up in a forum. It is not political correctness to ask someone to communicate the same way you would communicate to someone face to face in real life. Simple fact is since odds are there never gonna see the other person in the flesh and they can hide behind some web nickname they feel they can be as rude and condesending as they want.
See, I think part of the problem is that there was no feedback on these topics by the developers. 99% of the crap on those topics would have been stopped by a developer popping on saying "Good idea but we can't do that because XXX." Just like most other issues on this forum, good communications from Paizo usually fixes any concerns or problems. There just was no feedback from the staff on these topics. Now sure I don't expect them to monitor every single topic and every single post, but I just don't remember seeing them anywhere. There was no guidance, no suggestions, no response.
Krome, I know you're a good guy, but does Paizo really have to do that in so many different venues? I had a thread titled "Beta is just that... a beta" in which Lisa Stevens replied just to calm down some of the overhyped expectations.
I can definitely understand where you're coming from. I had high hopes for 4E before it came out, tried to keep an open mind, and in the end found a game I didn't like. I was seriously bummed.
I just think we all need to temper our expectations and not hope for the moon. And if you think that D&D needs so much fixing that you're still hoping for the moon, I'd say you're very likely to be disappointed again.
|
I am thoroughly pleased with the Alpha releases & the amount and quality of communication about what it was. I am also very pleased with the Beta. Last night our group gathered to officially being Beta play, and thanks to the Alpha releases were were already doing so!!! My weekly group is 100% agreed that Pathfinder is our official game going forward. And I'll be ordering three more Beta print editions - they're beautiful to own and use!
As for what happened to this forum - well, it might be a matter of setting expectations, and on the other side of the coin, some community members might not have followed all the discussion threads that offered information about the alpha and beta as questions came up.
The level of corporate transparancy is something, James, that has worked to your credit, not against it. If you were to do it again, a public Alpha just speaks to the crdibility and transparency of PAIZO.
Thank you.
Veector - there has not been as much "agressive" behavior as you imply. I believe much of this community is right in-step with PAIZO's approach, though I thank you for raising this issue to bring clarity where it is still needed.
-Pax
They have always said that backward-compatibility is a BIG goal of the game. Not some little "gee nice if that works out" thing, but one of the major forces driving it.
With that in mind- alot of "radical" things aren't going to fly. They may be good solid ideas. People have got to realize this. Some very good ideas are going to get cut simply because they are so radical that they destroy the backward compatibility of the game.
I think the Hostility of some people (note- some people, not all people) comes from two things.
1) Internet anonymity. Being able to come here and act a big shot tends to make some folks grow some iron they don't ordinarily have. They think they've found the answer and they get really, really up tight when you don't agree.
2) Alot of folks are used to DM'ing. They DM their worlds and have changed their rules as they see fit, and when they come here they may come with the expectation of being listened to. I've seen alot of "well I've been playing D&D for 400 years so I know what I'm talking about" being thrown about, as though their integrity or honesty is in question.
Everyone needs to understand that I can disagree with you, without you being wrong. Most things in D&D are our opinions. You have yours. I have mine. We can debate the finer points of the rules and walk away, still disagreeing, smilin and shaking hands. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean we have to breed hostility. In fact- some of the very BEST forum posts are done by people who disagree but are trying to find common ground, or are just trying to understand where the other person is coming from.
We need more of those posts and fewer of the "I am right because I said so and I've been around since the blue books, so shut up and listen to me" mentality.
-S
|
I just think we all need to temper our expectations and not hope for the moon. And if you think that D&D needs so much fixing that you're still hoping for the moon, I'd say you're very likely to be disappointed again.
I know everybody has a personal opinion related to what they'd like to see in Pathfinder and "shooting for the moon" seems to be what a lot of people are going for, but I have to say I'm one of the crowd that's happy to see things improving altogether with the new Pathfinder rules. I may not agree with everything, but frankly, that's what we've all invented house rules for in the past, and I'm going to guess we'll be doing the same thing in the future.
All I know is that my small group (4 players) is having an utter ball with the Alpha rules (we still haven't switched to the full Beta rules since I'm not done reading yet) and I spend about an hour and a half prior to our Wednesday night sessions prepping for our games. Keep in mind that I'm doing a full conversion of a 3.0 module too. If that doesn't say something about what they've put together, I don't know what would.
I think the thing we all need to keep in mind is that we're not always going to get what we want, but if we try sometime, we might find, what we need. Oh wait...that's not it.
|
|
I think the Hostility of some people (note- some people, not all people) comes from two things.
1) Internet anonymity. Being able to come here and act a big shot tends to make some folks grow some iron they don't ordinarily have. They think they've found the answer and they get really, really up tight when you don't agree.
See, it's John Gabriel's Greater Internet F***wad Theory in action!
Ok, I've just been reading a lot of aggressive posts on here lately and I just want to know... what gives?
This forum is far more tame than most; and that's a good thing! I enjoy this fairly civil forum. It's also great to see other people rejecting those that are overtly aggressive, passive aggressive, or just down right crude.
Really it's in peoples' best interest to state their requests and opinions on here with out aggressive or snide remarks and attitudes. It's not like that is some strategy that will actually convince someone to accept an opinion or suggestion. All that does is instantly switch off people who may have otherwise accepted what was being said.
|
|
Yes. Mikaze. I'm not starting anything right now but I think Jal Dorak, Nameless, and Mikaze would be a great core group when I get something together. :-)You're referring to Mikaze? Good show. Nothing but good things to say about Mikaze and Nameless.I'd like to invite you, Nameless, and Mikuze ... Mizuke? ... Makazu? ... damn, and I should be good at vaguely Japanese sounding names. You know who I mean.
Yes! New PbP! I am full of excitement! I will endeavor to last longer this time. I'm shooting for three encounters minimum.
So that's my way of saying that when you're ready, I will be there.