No prob. "Open Source Content" ;-)Will the four new base classes be OSC?It must be late because I don't recognize the abbreviation there. Indulge me, please. ^_^
Jeremy Puckett
Never heard that abb (abb is an abbreviation for abbreviation, because that word really needs one).
I think OGC is the official term (open game content).
And I'd start expecting the Second Coming of Jesus the day Paizo starts designating their rules stuff closed content. All the Pathfinder rules are OGC (and with Pathfinder I mean all the Pathfinder).
Also, note that this book will get its own open playtest. They're playing their "friendly neighbourhood gaming company" card to the hilt.
|
You could also have a samurai wizard (practicing alchemy or Taoist magic)Perhaps you can explain to me why or how a samurai (Japanese) wizard practices Taoist (Chinese) magic. Are you mistaking Taoism for Zen Buddhism?
No, I'm talking about the onmyoji, who practiced Taoist-derived alchemy, primarily during the early Heian period (when Japan's culture was a lot more like China). It didn't stick around very long in the real world (pretty much dead by the Sengoku), but if we're talking about fantasy, why not?
Edit: Here's a link to a Wikipedia article about it.
Jeremy Puckett
|
Link - can't vouch for it's accuracy but a quick search on Google found it quickly. It also backs up the point that a wizard might practice Tao-influenced magic.
|
|
[sarcasm]WHAT?!
Wow. I am frequently stunned by the amazing misconceptions that still persist about the cavaliers. A lot of those misconceptions are ones invented based on a 1980's cartoon and a 1E supplement called Unearthed Arcana, which in turn was based on a class which debuted in Dragon magazine #72.
"Cavalier" cannot be a character class. It is actually the name the Parliamentarians gave to the Royalist supporters of King Charles I during the English Civil War. Cavaliers were part of a social class of horse-mounted soldiers who dressed well, who owned rural estates that they managed from afar.
To use the term "cavalier" to refer to anything other than this very narrow, historical description and instead apply it to a broader, more fantasy-based context for the enjoyment of the game, is a signifier that the players and writers don't know anything about 17th Century England.
[/sarcasm]
In the context you're referring to, "cavalier" was a nickname for a subset of a certain group of people. On the other hand, the word itself (as described in the Wikipedia article you're quoting) is just Anglicized from the word "horseman" in Spanish and the Latin Vulgate. Samurai is not a nickname of convenience; it has a cultural meaning that people are deliberately trying to exploit when they apply it in a fictional context. You're attempting to apply a very narrow historical definition to a word with a broader meaning. I'm trying to argue that the narrow meaning normally applied to a word should be broadened out back to its actual historical context.
There are also a lot more productive ways to frame your argument.
Jeremy Puckett
|
|
Link - can't vouch for it's accuracy but a quick search on Google found it quickly. It also backs up the point that a wizard might practice Tao-influenced magic.I'd have to say, IMHO, that this is the worst explanation of Taoism I have ever read!
I've no doubt. Though his "it's weird, confusing crap" could cover quite a lot of other religions too. I think the article is intended as a very quick overview for RPG use (TORG is mentioned) so I guess he didn't want to get bogged down in the details. To be honest, it worked for me!
|
[sarcasm]WHAT?!
Wow. I am frequently stunned by the amazing misconceptions that still persist about the cavaliers. A lot of those misconceptions are ones invented based on a 1980's cartoon and a 1E supplement called Unearthed Arcana, which in turn was based on a class which debuted in Dragon magazine #72.
"Cavalier" cannot be a character class. It is actually the name the Parliamentarians gave to the Royalist supporters of King Charles I during the English Civil War. Cavaliers were part of a social class of horse-mounted soldiers who dressed well, who owned rural estates that they managed from afar.
To use the term "cavalier" to refer to anything other than this very narrow, historical description and instead apply it to a broader, more fantasy-based context for the enjoyment of the game, is a signifier that the players and writers don't know anything about 17th Century England.
[/sarcasm]
In the context you're referring to, "cavalier" was a nickname for a subset of a certain group of people. On the other hand, the word itself (as described in the Wikipedia article you're quoting) is just Anglicized from the word "horseman" in Spanish and the Latin Vulgate. Samurai is not a nickname of convenience; it has a cultural meaning that people are deliberately trying to exploit when they apply it in a fictional context. You're attempting to apply a very narrow historical definition to a word with a broader meaning. I'm trying to argue that the narrow meaning normally applied to a word should be broadened out back to its actual historical context.
Jeremy Puckett
Dude, I am sorry. But you are way off base. You are correct that the "Samurai" are not accurately portrayed in fiction.
However, Japanese entertainment continually and has always romanticized the "Samurai". The LOFR and WOTCs "Samurai","Ninja", and "Ronin" are dead on portrayals of their counterparts in Japanese media. Period.Be it Japanese soaps and sword flicks to video games and anime/manga.
To call that exploiting, is to indict the entire nation of Japan, who I am sorry- are quite capable of telling history from fiction. They just like westerners, who fluff Knights, musketeers, wild west, etc, find no need to play historically accurate for fiction or entertainment.
|
|
Dude, I am sorry. But you are way off base. You are correct that the "Samurai" are not accurately portrayed in fiction.
However, Japanese entertainment continually and has always romanticized the "Samurai". The LOFR and WOTCs "Samurai","Ninja", and "Ronin" are dead on portrayals of their counterparts in Japanese media. Period.
Be it Japanese soaps and...
Let me reference my first post where I acknowledge that Japan is responsible for much of the romanticization regarding the samurai (particularly in various jidaigeki films). At the same time, claiming that the L5R and WotC portrayals of those groups is "dead on" is... dubious at best. They're attempts at portrayal certainly, but they're hardly definitive. L5R is derivative of not just Japanese culture, but also large sections of Chinese, Korean, and Mongolian myth; in a lot of ways, L5R isn't Japanese at all--it's traditional fantasy in kimonos. (And I say this as a long-time player of both the card game and the RPG.)
Furthermore, in Japanese media, samurai are usually (though not always) depicted as members of a social class, which is the entire basis of my argument. Not all "samurai" in jidaigeki films are bushi; many of them are courtiers or bureaucrats--and when they are warriors, they don't demonstrate a single unified group of abilities besides martial skill. Not all ninja are mystical badasses; some of them are just assassins and spies (see the TV series Shadow Warriors for good examples)--and when they are mystical badasses, the depictions are so widely divergent that a single character class doesn't adequately cover it.
My essential point is that the cultural assumptions involved here need to be addressed with more complexity than slapping together a 20-level base class that does things that are already done by other base classes and giving it a Japanese name.
Jeremy Puckett
|
|
You're right - I could've been more productive if I were trying to frame a real argument. But, I wasn't. I was just having some fun.
Sorry. After several posts of people jumping down my neck, I was spoiling for a fight.
Anyway, what "samurai" means in an RPG context is nebulous at best. I mostly just want to try and correct some of the tendency of writers to reinvent the wheel, slap a Japanese name on it, and claim that it's somehow definitive or revolutionary when it's anything but.
I'm probably just tilting at windmills, but I can't help myself.
Jeremy Puckett
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You're right - I could've been more productive if I were trying to frame a real argument. But, I wasn't. I was just having some fun.Sorry. After several posts of people jumping down my neck, I was spoiling for a fight.
Anyway, what "samurai" means in an RPG context is nebulous at best. I mostly just want to try and correct some of the tendency of writers to reinvent the wheel, slap a Japanese name on it, and claim that it's somehow definitive or revolutionary when it's anything but.
I'm probably just tilting at windmills, but I can't help myself.
Jeremy Puckett
If it helps, I know a lot of people who've watched Shogun and still don't get that Mariko was Samurai. :P
But yeah, an OA book is likely going to use the gaijin image. I play Pathfinder to be entertained, not educated.
And you have to admit, it was funny.
Though having a Samurai (noble) in Andoran would be funy. "I am in charge, I am a noble from across the top of the world!"
Andoran Ranger: "Great, they have Taldor problems on the other side of the planet, too."
Can't we just ignore that the Japanese fantasy stuff is inaccurate? No one is getting their knickers in a knot over the fact that many of the Pathfinder classes we have now aren't really a proper portrayal of the occupation whose name they stole.
So here it is! My ultimatum! If you don't stop fighting, I'll start a flame war over the fact that there never was a real life sorcerer whose gramma was a gold dragon and who could grow claws for short times several times a day!
|
|
Jeremy, I agree with most of what you are saying.
You are right. Some Japanese shows do depict the larger spectrum of life in the olden days of Japan. Those shows are however not, IMO, what the LOFR and the WOTC classes are based on.Or any game for that matter.
They are based on the ones that took a liberal dose of fantasy. Take Final Fantasy and the like. These are the styles and genre I believe that LOFR and other like themed concepts go for.
I find myself struggling between the two sides. On one hand, I do not like a whole bunch of classes beyond the core. But I also, on the other hand, can see people liking them and I do not have to incorporate what I do not like.
In the end, you made good points Jeremy, however I disagree with your belief that it is exploiting anything by having a lame version of the fighter dubbed Samurai.
Wu Chi, I made a mental note to just avoid you when you basically called yourself out as an unapologetic troll, but I at least have to point out that you couldn't have chosen a better example to prove Set's point.
A person who becomes angry enough will eventually be tempted to use the most destructive language available to them, no matter what they actually do or don't believe about black people.
Frankly, I don't know whether your comprehension of human behavior really is as warped as you make it seem or if you're just trying to edge racial politics into the discussion to spice things up. That's the problem with trying to talk to someone like you.
I guess in the end it doesn't matter either way.
|
Wu Chi, I made a mental note to just avoid you when you basically called yourself out as an unapologetic troll, but I at least have to point out that you couldn't have chosen a better example to prove Set's point.
A person who becomes angry enough will eventually be tempted to use the most destructive language available to them, no matter what they actually do or don't believe about black people.
Frankly, I don't know whether your comprehension of human behavior really is as warped as you make it seem or if you're just trying to edge racial politics into the discussion to spice things up. That's the problem with trying to talk to someone like you.
I guess in the end it doesn't matter either way.
Hydro, on a totally unrelated note, I would like to take this opportunity to say that you are a class act, and I greatly respect your polite and well-reasoned posts. Even when said polite and well-reasoned posts are taking my arguments apart with a hacksaw. :P
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Core rules are NOT designed to revolve around any particular campaign setting!!! Any campaign settings that manage to make it into the core rules are nothing more than advertisement for that campaign setting, a not-so-veiled attempt to create more revenue instead of encouraging imaginative thinking on the part of the DM.
Hi, Wu Chi. You make a lot of good points in this thread, particularly about how evil PCs can be viable when run by mature players*, but I think you're cold, dead wrong here. Core Rules are always in service to particular campaign settings.
Of course, most role-playing games have a defined setting. The core Traveller rules don't just tell you how to run a space-based game; they give you the Third Imperium. The core Vampire rules outline the World of Darkness setting for a third of the book before they even discuss how to develop a character. Ditto with Amber Diceless Roleplaying. And every iteration of the Star Wars game. You can look at your own gaming shelves and fill in as many examples as you please.
Even if a game's core rulebook doesn't set out the fine details of the world, it sets out broad parameters that define what kind of campaign settings work in the genre. Feel free to disagree, but that's the important part of world building: not the boundaries of a kingdom or the name of the queen, but whether there are real good guys and bad guys, or whether everybody's out for themselves. Not whose name is attached to a spell that conjures up Black Tentacles, but what price magic exacts upon its users.
To cite two very old products, both FGU's Swordbearer and WEG's d6 Fantasy are simple systems set in a generic medieval fantasy with magic and monsters. Neither has any explicit campaign setting, but the rules encourage very different play, and the influences of magic on the setting are different. Swordbearer wouldn't be able to support something like the Forgotten Realms, with their emphasis on world-cracking powers and terrible mythal magics. A set of wa-hoo rules like d6 Fantasy would be pushing against its own systems if someone used it to run the World of Greyhawk, with its constant political tensions, secret societies, and deadly tombs.
Finally, we look to D&D. Every edition has supported a core campaign model. (Indeed, the shift from Gygax's Greyhawk to the Forgotten Realms is a pretty good representation of the shift from 1st Edition AD&D to 2nd. In 1st Edition, and in Greyhawk, the NPCs were always trying to shake the party down to the last copper piece. 2nd Edition, and the Realms, are less concerned with how much gold you need to hire sometime to train you to rise in level, and more concerned with getting you out the door so you can save the Dales from those Zhentarim baddies.)
(3rd Edition claims that it's core campaign is Greyhawk again, but it's kidding. The Red Wizards of Thay appear as a prestige class; the Scarlet Brotherhood doesn't.)
{One of the strongest criticisms against 4th Edition is the violence some people see done to old, established campaign settings. I think the most recent edition of Chainmail got it right, by setting its campaign in unexplored territory on Oerth. I'm looking forard to the first campaign setting native to 4th Edition.)
So, yes, the Pathfinder game supports the implied campaign setting, in ways both obvious (prestige classes) and subtle (gnomes as fey; paladins tied to personal gods).
--+--
* (which is as good a reason as any to restrict alignments in Organized Play)
So now it's a tag team match, or maybe you're just the same person posting with two different ID's. I would guess the latter!Hydro, on a totally unrelated note, I would like to take this opportunity to say that you are a class act, and I greatly respect your polite and well-reasoned posts. Even when said polite and well-reasoned posts are taking my arguments apart with a hacksaw. :PWu Chi, I made a mental note to just avoid you when you basically called yourself out as an unapologetic troll, but I at least have to point out that you couldn't have chosen a better example to prove Set's point.
A person who becomes angry enough will eventually be tempted to use the most destructive language available to them, no matter what they actually do or don't believe about black people.
Frankly, I don't know whether your comprehension of human behavior really is as warped as you make it seem or if you're just trying to edge racial politics into the discussion to spice things up. That's the problem with trying to talk to someone like you.
I guess in the end it doesn't matter either way.
It would appear that anyone that doesn't agree with you or like your method of discussion is either lying, an idiot, or a clone.
Honestly, this is not conducive to discussions. I have yet to see you disagree with someone without being hostile, confrontational, and denigrating. You may like pushing peoples buttons until they tell you off, but seriously, it's not a civilized method of discourse. I think you will find that people respect your opinions more when you give them a reason to.
So now it's a tag team match, or maybe you're just the same person posting with two different ID's. I would guess the latter!Hydro, on a totally unrelated note, I would like to take this opportunity to say that you are a class act, and I greatly respect your polite and well-reasoned posts. Even when said polite and well-reasoned posts are taking my arguments apart with a hacksaw. :PWu Chi, I made a mental note to just avoid you when you basically called yourself out as an unapologetic troll, but I at least have to point out that you couldn't have chosen a better example to prove Set's point.
A person who becomes angry enough will eventually be tempted to use the most destructive language available to them, no matter what they actually do or don't believe about black people.
Frankly, I don't know whether your comprehension of human behavior really is as warped as you make it seem or if you're just trying to edge racial politics into the discussion to spice things up. That's the problem with trying to talk to someone like you.
I guess in the end it doesn't matter either way.
I guess some people just want to be offended. But really, you've gone from saying peoples way of playing is patently absurd to outright calling posters idiots. And yet you take umbrage at the fairly non-confrontational advice to chill-out. I'm not sure where you came from, but we actually do try to play nice here, even when we disagree.
|
|
The Pathfinder system is designed specifically to support the Pathfinder setting. They have pretty much said that. Yes, PFRPG is a retooled version of 3.5, but they were quite explicit in saying that a reason not to go for 4e (legal and business issues aside) is that 4e didn't support the style of game they were writing for. Now, I'm sure they would love it if lots of people used it for their own settings and campaign worlds (ka-ching!) but it is pretty clear to me that primarily it is about Golarion.
|
|
I really can't help it if people are overly sensitive. Obviously, you've never seen true hostility. I'd be more than happy to give you an example, but I doubt that Paizo would appreciate that, so I'll refrain.
Actually, we have, and I for one have little desire to see it again. Please don't make threats as it will only get you flagged and maybe given a ban. It isn't worth it. Trying to provoke people, and explicitly saying so, is also not a long-term strategy for these boards. If you want to be here, you need to obey the rules (and they are actually written down now, so you have no real excuse not to know) otherwise you won't enjoy yourself much.
And I'd start expecting the Second Coming of Jesus the day Paizo starts designating their rules stuff closed content. All the Pathfinder rules are OGC (and with Pathfinder I mean all the Pathfinder).
Since the Pathfinder RPG is based on the Open Game License, I don't think they can designate any of their rules for new base classes as "closed content." If it's a base class that's based on the Open Game License (i.e., you roll it up following the standard procedures, and it gets HD and skills and stuff as you advance in level, etc.), then it's automatically open content.
AFAIK, the only "closed content" rules they could create would have to not be based on anything that's already part of the Open Game License (for example, if they decided to create rules for determining weather changes of your campaign world), but those rules couldn't reference anything already existing as part of the Open Game License. And, that would just be weird anyway. It would be confusing to have "open" and "closed" rules.
As a rule of thumb, I think the only stuff that stays "closed" is story-based elements (aka "fluff").
I don't think this is correct. Any OGL book you pick up has a list of what parts of it have been deemed 'open content' by the publishers. None of it is required to be.
|
|
Believe it or not, sometimes arguments arise spontaneously without intentional provocation. When that happens, you usually get down to what people really think instead of what they claim to think. These are normally rare situations. I have no problem taking people at their word without them being angry, though I have experienced many people whose word disintegrates once they are angry, and I can't help but feel that the truth of the matter, in those situations, lies in the anger, not in the calm.
I don't doubt that this couldn't be the case , but I actually doubt that this has valuable results on an internet forum. This thread seems to be the counter-proof of that. Let me explain:
This whole mess started when I responded to your post where you stated that, among other things:
The most obvious, and needed, choice for a base class would be a Blackguard to offset the Paladin.
I commented on that(after disagreeing with you on the topic at hand namely the 4 new classes) using a poor choice of words (and I already apologized for the poor choice of words in which I did).
In reaction to that, you wrote:
Furthermore, dictating the alignment of your players is patently absurd!
Now, I dont't want to bring this topic up again, I just want to show how my poor choice of words and your aggressive reaction to it led to totally derailing this thread. We don't discuss the topic at hand and while you can bet that my blackguard comment was as honest as you can get it, said comment did nothing to further the actual discussion. Others chimed in and suddenly we waste our times making offensive and condescending comments instead of talking about what we want to see (or not) in future Pathfinder products.
This development of a thread is nothing you'll normally find on the paizo boards (outta the 4E forum, where you'll unluckily see it happening more often) which is exactly why I'm a regular here.
'Cause we can can disagree on a given topic without needing to fight to settle our disagreement.
Pull up chair, pop's popcorn and opens a beer
A person who becomes angry enough will eventually be tempted to use the most destructive language available to them
THAT'S NOT TRUE, YOU (insert ten-page essay about what kinds of animals raped Hydros ancestors)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
;-P
Other than that, you're right: heated discussions don't work. They spiral out of control, people start calling names, moderators have to come in and ban people.
|
|
If Paizo wants to ban me for what I've said here, then so be it. In fact, I have no desire to be here if Paizo thinks anything I've said is excessive, because I don't see a problem other than certain individuals who want to control how the discussions are framed. It's obvious to me that some people here are more concerned with form than substance.I really can't help it if people are overly sensitive. Obviously, you've never seen true hostility. I'd be more than happy to give you an example, but I doubt that Paizo would appreciate that, so I'll refrain.Actually, we have, and I for one have little desire to see it again. Please don't make threats as it will only get you flagged and maybe given a ban. It isn't worth it. Trying to provoke people, and explicitly saying so, is also not a long-term strategy for these boards. If you want to be here, you need to obey the rules (and they are actually written down now, so you have no real excuse not to know) otherwise you won't enjoy yourself much.
I have no say over what Paizo may or may not do. I'm simply basing my comments on previous examples I have seen here. Unless you wish to martyr yourself needlessly, I'm just pointing out how to get along with people here a bit better. What you do is up to you, and you will face whatever consequences may or may not arise based on that.
|
|
In the first case you cite, in the sense that the campaign world is inconsistent and incoherent as I see it, yes, I said it's patently absurd.
But I'm a curious person so I'd just like to ask you to explain why you see it as patently absurd. Why is it important for the coherence and consistency of a campaign world that I allow the players to play evil characters? What makes the world inconsistent if the players are of good or neutral alignment? Especially as I guess that ou wouldn't force your players to play evil characters either?
What I'm trying to say is that my decision to ban evil alignment not from the world but from my player's char sheets is a metagame decision which has nothing to do the world their characters eventually will live in.
Now, I'm sure they would love it if lots of people used it for their own settings and campaign worlds (ka-ching!) but it is pretty clear to me that primarily it is about Golarion.
No more than 3e was about Greyhawk. Even less, I'd say. There's no "Nethys's Blessed Book", no "Quiver of Erastil", no "Xin's Disjunction", no "Xanderghul's Hideous Laughter".
Plus, it's really easy to make the kinds of changes you see in campaign settings every day. PFRPG won't fall down and deflate if you say your gnomes aren't fey, elves are see-faring priestly types. Ignore the Great Beyond at your leasure, not peril.
|
|
A person who becomes angry enough will eventually be tempted to use the most destructive language available to themTHAT'S NOT TRUE, YOU (insert ten-page essay about what kinds of animals raped Hydros ancestors)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
;-P
Other than that, you're right: heated discussions don't work. They spiral out of control, people start calling names, moderators have to come in and ban people.
Quite. And there were one or two people here who also got their jollies by provoking that too, and others who wish to "win" their exchanges. Again, not long term strategies.
|
|
Now, I'm sure they would love it if lots of people used it for their own settings and campaign worlds (ka-ching!) but it is pretty clear to me that primarily it is about Golarion.No more than 3e was about Greyhawk. Even less, I'd say. There's no "Nethys's Blessed Book", no "Quiver of Erastil", no "Xin's Disjunction", no "Xanderghul's Hideous Laughter".
Plus, it's really easy to make the kinds of changes you see in campaign settings every day. PFRPG won't fall down and deflate if you say your gnomes aren't fey, elves are see-faring priestly types. Ignore the Great Beyond at your leasure, not peril.
One of the things I have always thought is that it would be quite cool to have a d20 version of Glorantha. Now, I am aware that there are two systems - the Heroquest system (absolutely no knowledge) and the d100 - that have been used there. But I struggle to see how d20 would seriously be used to do a Gloranthan campaign that felt much like a d100campaign of my youth - the systems are quite radically different. Either way, something would have to give, either in the setting or the mechanics. Cosmetic changes, like above, are easy and PFRPG could be used if you were basically happy to set it in a world where the standard D&D tropes prevailed. But there are degrees of change and to some extent you will end up with either a radically different system or a a different setting.