|
There is a great article over at Aint it cool.com.
For those that are not familiar, Aint It Cool is a VERY popular site - everyone needs to pop over and read it ... and post a response if you are so inclined!
"And that’s why I couldn’t find it (at GenCon) – D&D wasn’t called D&D anymore, it was called Pathfinder."
Great read! One of my old friends had a similar experience to this. He was in a 4E game, thought it was a respectable system, but didn't feel like he was playing good ol D&D. I introduced Pathfinder, and he hasn't looked back since. In fact, I believe he's picking up his reserved copy today.
Hooray for Pathfinder! Thanks Paizo!
Ha! Beautiful.
Now, I DO know a lot of old-school gamers who wouldn't agree at all with his characterization of 4e.
That said, this guy apparently never played 3.0 OR 3.5, and he still preferred Pathfinder to 4e? I call that a commendation.
Whoever sent this to AICN may have sent it from >>here<<. It was posted early yesterday morning.
Can somebody link the story I can't find it on there site.
Can somebody link the story I can't find it on there site.
The link is at the bottom of the OPs post. I have a link to the original(?) thread in my previous post.
|
Ha! Beautiful.
Now, I DO know a lot of old-school gamers who wouldn't agree at all with his characterization of 4e.
That said, this guy apparently never played 3.0 OR 3.5, and he still preferred Pathfinder to 4e? I call that a commendation.
My girlfriend and I recently introduced PFRPG to someone who's first experience with roleplaying (let alone D&D) was with 4e. After he spent some time looking at the classes and explaining how to make a character he kept saying "This is so cool, look at all the options I have! I can play anything I want!"
I just smugly grinned at that.
(wait five seconds, turning on anti-flaming armor)
1...
2...
3...
4...
5...
To be honest, I find weird that he complains that D&D 4E "are rules written for people with a comprehension level below the eight grade". I myself was 10 years old and on 5th grade when I started playing AD&D, and I suspect that many self-called "old-school gamers" were also about this age when they started.
I also find pretty strange for someone who claims to not know what is D&D for the last 10 years to say that the rules were "simplified" by Pathfinder RPG, since 1E, 2E and OD&D were far easier to learn than 3.5E, Pathfinder RPG, and probably even 4E, for that matter. Well, unless he is counting the 2E Player's Options series, of course.
|
|
There is a great article over at Aint it cool.com.
For those that are not familiar, Aint It Cool is a VERY popular site - everyone needs to pop over and read it ... and post a response if you are so inclined!
"And that’s why I couldn’t find it (at GenCon) – D&D wasn’t called D&D anymore, it was called Pathfinder."
With all due respect, to me this just reads like more edition war fodder. I would so love to get past all of that nonsense and just play our games.
To be honest, I find weird that he complains that D&D 4E "are rules written for people with a comprehension level below the eight grade". I myself was 10 years old and on 5th grade when I started playing AD&D, and I suspect that many self-called "old-school gamers" were also about this age when they started.
Go back and read your old Player's Handbook or Dungeon Master's Guide. Those books were written to a much more... literate audience. Each edition since has been written just a bit more simplified in terms of vocabulary and comprehension levels required to fully understand them. I'm not saying this is good or bad, though I personally miss the more verbose writings of Gygax when compared to what we have today, even in the PFRPG Core book.
You and I, and likely most people who started playing at a young age were not typical of our peers. If you were at all like me your face was always buried in a book. The Lord of the Rings had been devoured by my young brain multiple times before I ever heard of Dungeons & Dragons. The standardized tests we were taking already rated me at college levels in reading and comprehension when I was still in grade school.
I find the 4e books to be very simplified in terms of language and writing style. Again, not saying that's a bad thing, but I do like to break out my old PHB/DMG and read Gary's forewords from time to time. Yay nostalgia! :)
Go back and read your old Player's Handbook or Dungeon Master's Guide. Those books were written to a much more... literate audience. Each edition since has been written just a bit more simplified in terms of vocabulary and comprehension levels required to fully understand them. I'm not saying this is good or bad, though I personally miss the more verbose writings of Gygax when compared to what we have today, even in the PFRPG Core book.
You and I, and likely most people who started playing at a young age were not typical of our peers. If you were at all like me your face was always buried in a book. The Lord of the Rings had been devoured by my young brain multiple times before I ever heard of Dungeons & Dragons. The standardized tests we were taking already rated me at college levels in reading and comprehension when I was still in grade school.
I find the 4e books to be very simplified in terms of language and writing style. Again, not saying that's a bad thing, but I do like to break out my old PHB/DMG and read Gary's forewords from time to time. Yay nostalgia! :)
That would be true if the author was basing his opinion on reading the current 4E books, but according to his words, it was based on the demonstration game that he played. I found weird because D&D 4E at gameplay doesn't seem "simple" at all for someone who only knows AD&D/OD&D, with all those opportunity attacks/marks/five different types of action/threatened areas/bloodied status/healing surges/multiple attack and defense values/combat advantage/conditions/end-of-round saving throws/delay and ready action, etc. In fact, DMing 4th edition was the first time I needed help from my players to manage combat because I couldn't track all those crazy conditions alone.
Obviously, there are probably dozens of reasons for an old time AD&D/OD&D player that never known D&D 3.XE to dislike D&D 4E (including all these complication I mentioned). I just found the so emphasized "excessive simplicity" reason cited by the author to be inapropriate, seeming, like JollyRoger said, a pretext to start an edition war.
But, of course, I could (and I hope to) be mistaken.
|
Go back and read your old Player's Handbook or Dungeon Master's Guide. Those books were written to a much more... literate audience. Each edition since has been written just a bit more simplified in terms of vocabulary and comprehension levels required to fully understand them. I'm not saying this is good or bad, though I personally miss the more verbose writings of Gygax when compared to what we have today, even in the PFRPG Core book.
You and I, and likely most people who started playing at a young age were not typical of our peers. If you were at all like me your face was always buried in a book. The Lord of the Rings had been devoured by my young brain multiple times before I ever heard of Dungeons & Dragons. The standardized tests we were taking already rated me at college levels in reading and comprehension when I was still in grade school.
I find the 4e books to be very simplified in terms of language and writing style. Again, not saying that's a bad thing, but I do like to break out my old PHB/DMG and read Gary's forewords from time to time. Yay nostalgia! :)
That would be true if the author was basing his opinion on reading the current 4E books, but according to his words, it was based on the demonstration game that he played. I found weird because D&D 4E at gameplay doesn't seem "simple" at all for someone who only knows AD&D/OD&D, with all those opportunity attacks/marks/five different types of action/threatened areas/bloodied status/healing surges/multiple attack and defense values/combat advantage/conditions/end-of-round saving throws/delay and ready action, etc. In fact, DMing 4th edition was the first time I needed help from my players to manage combat because I couldn't track all those crazy conditions alone.
Obviously, there are probably dozens of reasons for an old time AD&D/OD&D player that never known D&D 3.XE to dislike D&D 4E (including all these complication I mentioned). I just found the so emphasized "excessive simplicity" reason cited by the...
The problem with all that is, As someone who has played 4th, and is a part of the RPGA, a herald level judge, and further someone who spends time in the rules forum, Wizards didn't produce a very satisfying product.
What they did was created rules, then changed some of the words in those rules, and reprinted them as new rules. Example being the soft defenses (or depending on who you ask "non-armor defenses" or nads), they are basically AC, and have been treated as such in the rules. You don't need to be a genius to figure out how those defenses work, because if you know how ac works, how they work is exactly the same.
I have played a variety of characters in Modules during the RPGA settings, and perhaps that's the problem, Wizards has no CLUE how to write fulfilling modules. It always feels like an instanced run on World of Warcraft. Hell I'm building a ranger in there specifically to be a Hunter, pet and all. The rules are very simplistic, and take no time to learn, because its all straightforward. The only time rules actually get complex, is when Wizards poorly writes how something works, or stupidly left something vague. (Two examples is Free Actions interrupting other actions, and Charging "directly" towards a target.)
Pathfinder has a bit of depth, and breadth to it. It builds upon what came before and to someone who is coming from AD&D they see the customization and the ability to have options. In 4e the options feel rather static. Its either A or B and if you want the options to do C or D you better by the next splat book. Paizo, has taken a stance of trying to make everything open and fair game. Hell one of the guys in charge of the product just said they plan on the Advanced Player's guide being largely OGL.
Does that mean Paizo is stupid and is going to lose out on so much?
Not in the least, many people like having a book rather than watching things on the internet. The use of Adventure Paths and the campaign setting that is NOT OGL content will keep them well fed. THe fact that they enlist a player base that has been working with variations of their rules for years, and understand a bit about balance, sets them beyond WoTC for one reason.
They play test.
Those three words are huge. At times I have to wonder how WoTC could allow certain products out, from shamefully alpha testing 4e in 3.5 (through the Tome of Battle) to cranking out an entire role playing system to test their product further. (ALA Star Wars Saga Edition) This creates quite a few situations, and I honestly dislike their production policy, almost as much as I hate Marketing for supporting it.
You just shouldn't do business that way. Its bad business and is the reason why Pathfinder finds so many disillusioned gamers under its roofs. They're tired of bad decisions, and they like that their opinion matters. When the Advanced Players Handbook comes out next August, you can bet that hundreds of players will proudly buy a copy, simply because they contributed to it. Its a community building process that frankly is amazing in a gaming industry rocked hard by the economic times. The entire concept is an evolution of the Gaming Industry that creates a warm and fuzzy feeling in my heart. It gives me joy seeing a gaming company has gone such a direction.
Paizo, has taken a stance of trying to make everything open and fair game. Hell one of the guys in charge of the product just said they plan on the Advanced Player's guide being largely OGL.
Well, I think we are a bit out of topic now, right? I have no intention of starting another discussion of the merits (or un-merits) of each product. We should just, as JollyRogers said, play the game we like. Like I said before, there are MANY reasons for someone who played AD&D/OD&D and never played 3E/3.5E/Pathfinder/etc. to not like 4E. I just don't believe "excessive simplicity" would be on the top of the list. Much less "not being open game" would be a reason, since previous iterations of D&D before 3E weren't open either, in fact, they were much less "open" than 4E.
Well, the story sure is hilarious. And regarding an edition war: There is always at least two parties in a war, so...
Roguejames just recounted that the 4e demo game was not what he was looking for in D&D, and gave his opinion freely and to the point - perhaps a bit much so, but still within reason IMO. I don´t think this was intentionally written as flamebait.
Stefan
Boy, is he going to get hate mail...
Just read the comments below the post - enough hate to last a lifetime.
What I don´t get is that people see this as a review - it is an opinion and a recount of experiences, but not a review by far. Somebody even ranted that he was forced to read it - I cannot say how dumb this comment is. Somebody forcing me to read some comment on the net I disagree with? I dare you to try! *shakes head* I don´t get some people.
Stefan
Hmmm, I haven't read any of the comments...
|
|
I have played a variety of characters in Modules during the RPGA settings, and perhaps that's the problem, Wizards has no CLUE how to write fulfilling modules. It always feels like an instanced run on World of Warcraft.
I cant speak for the 3.x era of the RPGA, but that sounds very similar to how it was in 2nd edition. We referred to it as "jump through the hoop, pull the level, get the cheese."
Extremely linear.
|
|
Boy, is he going to get hate mail...
Isn't that the truth... its kind of sad how quickly the 4e zealots get violent. Half the time you can't tell the difference between their so-called "Arguments" and a George Carlin skit... seriously. Someone should tell them that the guys that breakdown and start cussing like a sailor who just stubbed his toe are usually the ones on the losing side of the argument...
Dissinger wrote: The problem with all that is, As someone who has played 4th, and is a part of the RPGA, a herald level judge, and further someone who spends time in the rules forum, Wizards didn't produce a very satisfying product.
What they did was created rules, then changed some of the words in those rules, and reprinted them as new rules. Example being the soft defenses (or depending on who you ask "non-armor defenses" or nads), they are basically AC, and have been treated as such in the rules. You don't need to be a genius to figure out how those defenses work, because if you know how ac works, how they work is exactly the same.
I have played a variety of characters in Modules during the RPGA settings, and perhaps that's the problem, Wizards has no CLUE how to write fulfilling modules. It always feels like an instanced run on World of Warcraft. Hell I'm building a ranger in there specifically to be a Hunter, pet and all. The rules are very simplistic, and take no time to learn, because its all straightforward. The only time rules actually get complex, is when Wizards poorly writes how something works, or stupidly left something vague. (Two examples is Free Actions interrupting other actions, and Charging "directly" towards a target.)
Pathfinder has a bit of depth, and breadth to it. It builds upon what came before and to someone who is coming from AD&D they see the customization and the ability to have options. In 4e the options feel rather static. Its either A or B and if you want the options to do C or D you better by the next splat book. Paizo, has taken a stance of trying to make everything open and fair game. Hell one of the guys in charge of the product just said they plan on the Advanced Player's guide being largely OGL.
Does that mean Paizo is stupid and is going to lose out on so much?
Not in the least, many people like having a book rather than watching things on the internet. The use of Adventure Paths and the campaign setting that is NOT OGL content will keep them well fed. THe fact that they enlist a player base that has been working with variations of their rules for years, and understand a bit about balance, sets them beyond WoTC for one reason.
They play test.
Those three words are huge. At times I have to wonder how WoTC could allow certain products out, from shamefully alpha testing 4e in 3.5 (through the Tome of Battle) to cranking out an entire role playing system to test their product further. (ALA Star Wars Saga Edition) This creates quite a few situations, and I honestly dislike their production policy, almost as much as I hate Marketing for supporting it.
You just shouldn't do business that way. Its bad business and is the reason why Pathfinder finds so many disillusioned gamers under its roofs. They're tired of bad decisions, and they like that their opinion matters. When the Advanced Players Handbook comes out next August, you can bet that hundreds of players will proudly buy a copy, simply because they contributed to it. Its a community building process that frankly is amazing in a gaming industry rocked hard by the economic times. The entire concept is an evolution of the Gaming Industry that creates a warm and fuzzy feeling in my heart. It gives me joy seeing a gaming company has gone such a direction.
**************************************************************
I couldn't have said it better. This captures my feelings exactly.
Boy, is he going to get hate mail...Isn't that the truth... its kind of sad how quickly the 4e zealots get violent. Half the time you can't tell the difference between their so-called "Arguments" and a George Carlin skit... seriously. Someone should tell them that the guys that breakdown and start cussing like a sailor who just stubbed his toe are usually the ones on the losing side of the argument...
Right, because there are no narrowminded, quasi-literate grognards "supporting" 3.5.
...shamefully alpha testing 4e in 3.5 (through the Tome of Battle)...
What?
Okay, first up, were you so inclined, you could say that about every book for 3.5. Third edition WAS the Alpha playtest for fourth edition.
That's how new editions WORK.
Yes, the Tome of Battle was bolder and more creative than The Complete Warrior. So was Magic of Incarnium and Tome of Magic. So was Iron Heroes and (from what I've heard) the Conan RPG. The older an edition is, the more adventurous and experimental new supplements become, because the common ground has already been covered. That, again, is just how the game WORKS.
And, yes, the direction that Wizards went with 4e was undoubtedly influenced by the popularity of the Bo9S. It was their job to figure out what their fans wanted and design a game that would appeal to them, and for the most part they did. You can growl and grumble until you're blue in the face about their evil marketing ploys and the evil market that rewards those ploys, but the bottom line is that people like 4e.
I seriously want to see into your head here. I want you to explain how any of the above could possibly be construed as "shameful".
Great read.
Like the author I was about ten years out of role playing too.
I've been playing in a 4E game for a few month now and while there is a lot I like about it overall it does play like Jest described it; kick in the door, kill the monsters, rinse, lather repeat. I came into it with a lot of excitement and wanted to LOVE 4E, but as of right now I can't say it's any great shakes. It's not bad, but it doesn't leave me wanting more at the end of a gaming session. The only thing that I think 4E did an amazing job with is the character builder. But you need to pay for Insider to get that updated.
We're switching to Pathfinder as of next week. The fact that we can start playing when none of our Pathfinder books have arrived yet says a lot about Paizo. Thanks for that awesome SRD!The various video reviews I've watched, and the amazing art on the Piazo blog, have me drooling with anticipation.
I came back into RPGs not having an opinion one way or the other regarding the reboot on D&D. But as I've read up on the various issues and different camps either for or against WoTC it seems to me like Paizo is all about the games, the community, and extremely high production standards.
I'm very excited to see how things go at next week's game.
I will be the first to say that I was always a new edition nerd. When Unearthed Arcana for 1e came out, I was all over it. I always tried to incorporate stuff from Dragon Magazine (anyone else remember the Elven Cavalier?). I bought 2e & loved it. Again, all over the Rules & Options books that came out for 2e. When WotC bought out TSR, I actually sent e-mails to TSR stating I thought it was a mistake. I actually got an answer, cant remember who from, but they did a good job explaining the situation. They didnt have to, but I really appreciated it. At that time, I pretty much gave up on D&D for a few years. Interestingly enough, I decided to look up what was happening with the game the summer of 2000. I was stunned that 3e was coming out soon, around my birthday in August. I started reading all I could on Eric Noah's site. Bought the Player's Handbook as soon as it got on the shelves & fell in love with the game all over again. OGL blew me away. Was a little disappointed when 3.5e ame out, though. Played using the SRD & 3e books for a few years. That was about the time that WotC started changing thier reall support for the OGL. I was getting worried when Paizo was formed to publish the Mags, but it seemed to be a sound move. A little voice in my head kept nagging me that something was not right, but I ignored it. Kept on buying books & being blind. Then 4e was announced on the heels of a couple of major purchases of 3.5e books, mainly Eberron stuff. I bought into the initial excitement for 4e. Even was excited when that video showing D&D throught he editions & that said that 4e was still the same game. THEN I got to sit down with a copy of the rules. THEN i got to follow the fiasco over the GSL. THEN I FINALLY understood what that little voice was saying. That WotC had become the Microsoft of the RPG industry. It seems to me, WotC just put out their new Operating system, Vista (4e D&D) & assumes they have all the fans by the shorthairs. Too bad allot of us have stood by XP (3.5e).
I just can't seem to understand the edition wars. Why on earth should I care if one game is better balanced then the other. I've played games where the rules where loosely put together guidelines being held into coherence only by GM fiat (first edition vampire I'm looking at you). Why should I care about fine tuned balance. This isn't a MMO. A good GM's game won't fall apart if there are slight class imbalances (though I will say that the 3.5 cleric is pushing it a bit).
I will be the first to say that I was always a new edition nerd. When Unearthed Arcana for 1e came out, I was all over it. I always tried to incorporate stuff from Dragon Magazine (anyone else remember the Elven Cavalier?). I bought 2e & loved it. Again, all over the Rules & Options books that came out for 2e. When WotC bought out TSR, I actually sent e-mails to TSR stating I thought it was a mistake. I actually got an answer, cant remember who from, but they did a good job explaining the situation. They didnt have to, but I really appreciated it. At that time, I pretty much gave up on D&D for a few years. Interestingly enough, I decided to look up what was happening with the game the summer of 2000. I was stunned that 3e was coming out soon, around my birthday in August. I started reading all I could on Eric Noah's site. Bought the Player's Handbook as soon as it got on the shelves & fell in love with the game all over again. OGL blew me away. Was a little disappointed when 3.5e ame out, though. Played using the SRD & 3e books for a few years. That was about the time that WotC started changing thier reall support for the OGL. I was getting worried when Paizo was formed to publish the Mags, but it seemed to be a sound move. A little voice in my head kept nagging me that something was not right, but I ignored it. Kept on buying books & being blind. Then 4e was announced on the heels of a couple of major purchases of 3.5e books, mainly Eberron stuff. I bought into the initial excitement for 4e. Even was excited when that video showing D&D throught he editions & that said that 4e was still the same game. THEN I got to sit down with a copy of the rules. THEN i got to follow the fiasco over the GSL. THEN I FINALLY understood what that little voice was saying. That WotC had become the Microsoft of the RPG industry. It seems to me, WotC just put out their new Operating system, Vista (4e D&D) & assumes they have all the fans by the shorthairs. Too bad allot of us have stood by XP (3.5e).
Microsoft didn't create the GPL. WotC created the OGL, and thus allowed products like Pathfinder RPG (and also Pathfinder, for that matter) to even exist.
Microsoft made most of its products (including Windows) "based" on existing products from other companies and used agressive tactics to expel the competing products from the market. WotC designed 3E and 4E by itself. In fact, it was the decision of other companies to make their products based on D&D.
Microsoft monopolistic strategy is based on the fact that many people and companies need, or feel they need Microsoft products for they everyday tasks. So they will have or feel they have to use these products (and other products that require these products to work) regardless of liking them or not.
In the other hand, I don't think anyone "needs" D&D 4E to live, much less they "feel they need" D&D 4E to live regardless of its entertainment value. You may find unbelievable, but I can assure you that most of people who play D&D 4E and buy D&D 4E products actually do that because they enjoy it, and not because they are being forced, or feel they are being forced to do so. Yeah, perhaps all of them are eight-grade mentality World of Warcraft/Anime teenager fans with IQ below Brazil's president Lula, but monopolistic action on part of WotC on this? Absolutely none.
Sorry, but to me, the repeated-to-death WotC vs. Microsoft comparison does not make ANY sense.
P.S. ok, if someone likes Brazil's president Lula, please consider it as a humorous joke only, right? =)
|
|
Before I start, you can contact me on AIM SethDahlios should you wish to continue this.
...shamefully alpha testing 4e in 3.5 (through the Tome of Battle)...What?
Okay, first up, were you so inclined, you could say that about every book for 3.5. Third edition WAS the Alpha playtest for fourth edition.
Nope, far from it. SO much of the ideas and thoughts were put into the game in the ToB in order to get ideas for what was coming out. The ToB was launched in 2006, the announcement of fourth edition was in 2k7. Do the math dude, that is roughly enough of a head start to test ideas and see how they function. The fact that the ToB is a self contained system that requires no outside interference to run long after other classes takes a break shows how much of a testing bed for fourth edition it was.
Yes, the Tome of Battle was bolder and more creative than The Complete Warrior. So was Magic of Incarnium and Tome of Magic. So was Iron Heroes and (from what I've heard) the Conan RPG. The older an edition is, the more adventurous and experimental new supplements become, because the common ground has already been covered. That, again, is just how the game WORKS.
And, yes, the direction that Wizards went with 4e was undoubtedly influenced by the popularity of the Bo9S. It was their job to figure out what their fans wanted and design a game that would appeal to them, and for the most part they did. You can growl and grumble until you're blue in the face about their evil marketing ploys and the evil market that rewards those ploys, but the bottom line is that people like 4e.
Now, add in that force powers function as Encounter powers, and you have the other half of the coin for how they decided to do power design for Fourth Edition. This isn't me just saying stuff to be a conspiracy theorist, this is me taking a look from a design perspective and connecting dots. When things come out within less than a year, and they blatantly showcase things that appear in the 4th edition, that tells me one of two things;
1) Their play test is secretly done through selling product in order to see how people react to it. The ToB is a good example of this, as it has several problems within its pages, not the least of which being the ability to continue infinitely. Compared to even the most powerful of wizard, a ToB character never "blows their load" and maintains an ability to be deadly at little to no cost battle after battle.
2) They are slowly turning all their games into one game to simplify things.
I find it highly more likely they're doing the former than the latter, as they haven't created a new edition of Star Wars to convert it wholly to 4th edition dnd. Instead they're letting it stand apart, as something different.
I seriously want to see into your head here. I want you to explain how any of the above could possibly be construed as "shameful".
I find it shameful that instead of trying to respect their product they inject a book that obviously has little to no sense being in the system to begin with. Pathfinder created a far better fix to melee classes, Wizards, instead made them mini wizards in the interest of play testing 4th edition. A book that widely changed how the game was played in a very dark manner. The impact of the other books was near negligible, the impact that ToB had upon the playing field?
You tell me dude. What am I supposed to be thinking?
Now, I left you my Aim so you can contact me there. But I find the time lines show more accurately my point, than just pointing at me and calling me a conspiracy theorist.
Leave that for the Council of Thieves campaign dude. ;)
thats rite, cuz Pathfiner rulez and 4e drools!!!1!
word
|
I personally liked some of the changes that the original writers of ToB suggested, along with other players feedback.
General: No recharge mechanic. You use up all of your readied maneuvers in an encounter, that's it, you wait until next encounter. This one was suggested by Rich Baker himself, stating that the recharge mechanic in retrospect seems like a clunky add on, and it undermines resource management.
Crusaders: Your readied maneuvers are no different than anyone else's. No "two maneuvers randomly chosen" to start. Again, this one was suggested by Rich Baker, who said that this was the "automatic recharge" mechanic for the crusader, and it turned out to make the class more complicated than it needs to be.
Warblade: Hit dice move back down to d10. These guys are suppose to be technique fighters, and while they are front line warriors, there is no need for them to be the damage sponges that barbarians and knights are, because its not really their purpose.
Cut out Weapon Aptitude as an ability. Not only does this not make much sense, but it intentionally steals the fighters only real exclusive ability, and then makes it better. If Warblades are suppose to replace fighters in your campaign, fine, but if they both exist, let the fighter have his moment in the sun and cut this out of the Warblade.
I have yet to try any of this, but I feel it helps bring them back in line with 3.5, and probably make them a perfect fit with Pathfinder.
Some stuff regarding Xorials post and WotC having made the OGL and thus allowing us to have the PRPG
Well, you're right there, the company named Wizards of the Coast did create the OGL. But the company that is WotC now is a far different beast than it was when the OGL was made. There were different people at the helm and Hasbro had yet to enter into things. One could argue that that company is different from what it used to be in everything but name.
As for the microsoft analogy, meh, Wizards had to pick a direction to keep RPG's viable, they were out of material to publish for 3.5 and in order to make money had to do something drastically different. I think one thing that is a far more apt comparison is big guy little guy. Wizards runs it's business with a corporate mentality, it's a large company compared to most gaming companies, is run by an even larger company, and serves the bottom line. Their decisions are largely business decisions. These recently involved making the rules simpler and easy to understand, there's a lot to keep track of sure, but all in all it was easier to understand than 3.5 was. It involved taking some inspiration from MMORPG's (there's no denying this, wizards even admitted to it, the key word being inspiration) and aiming the game at a younger target audience.
If you look at the videos from PaizoCon it's mentioned that the customer base for Paizo is on the older side, I believe 25-35 or 40 is where the big numbers lie. I imagine 4e has a larger younger fan base, well, it obviously does but I mean per capita.
Wizards went in a completely different direction than Paizo as far as the flavor of the game went. Though, as with many smaller companies, I will say I believe the PRPG shows more of a love of the game than does 4e. Not saying the people at Wizards don't love the game, but I believe it shows more in the PRPG, sort of a higher concentration sort of thing.
4e and the PRPG are two different beasts. Considering they both bear the legacy of the most popular RPG in the world at their heart in a few ways. WotC obviously has the license and the title, but both companies have members who have been around since TSR, in fact I'm almost willing to bet that Paizo has more Old Guard than Wizards but I'm unsure. Either way it's irrelevant, whatever captures the 'feel of D&D' is up to the player of the game. Not even owning the brand name or publishing a product that holds onto the games roots a little more can change that.
This is a result of me ranting at 5:30am without sleep. Yay :P
First of all, the d20 system is already quite complex for a game that takes place in your imagination. But, as more and more, mechanically and conceptually redundant classes are added, it becomes a headache for DMs.
(...)Second of all, this becomes a daunting mess for new players. Getting an idea of the 11 core classes and what they do can already be a lot, so I have to think hard before adding 6 new classes for the more advanced players
(...)Third of all, in theory, I agree, if they can keep pumping out new ideas that are conceptually and mechanically diverse, then by all means do so. In practice, this tends to lead to poor mechanics because, people want a samurai class, but the samurai class is covered quite well by the rules. So, as a writer, what will I do?
(...)Fourth, bloat leads to bloat. If I want to play a spartan and a samurai exists, why on earth would I be content with the fighter? I want a spartan class! Why doesn't that exist?
(...)Fifth, and this is the big one, it takes away from support of existing classes. Let's say I'm an intimidation-based fighter at level 11 (...) Yes, some of this is unpreventable, because you can't make your character with material you don't have, but it can be prevented by adding support to existing classes, rather than adding whole new shtick-stealing classes.
These are all insightful arguments.. the thing is, most of them apply to other mechanics at least as much as they apply to feats.
If a character wants to use a single new class, that's very easy for me to read and either reject or accept. I seriously don't understand the DM-centric complaint here. A class is a neat, tidy bundle of new abilities; at least, when compared to a bundle of feats or spells with the same page foothold.
I welcome new mechanics most of the time, at least if that's what my players want. But if I had to choose between a player using a new "ninja" class or a player using three pages of new "ninja feats" and spells, based on what is easier for me to handle, frankly I'd take the base class.
It's also much, much, MUCH easier for me to say
"The dread necromancer and the duskblade will be available for play, they're in these books. No, the archivist and dragon shaman don't exist in this world, but see me if you want to play a beguiler."
compared to,
"Feats H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R and S will be available in my game. See me about feats A, B, and C. You can't take feats D, E, F, G, H, T, U, V..."
I just tell my players verbally what classes I use in a given game, and can easily explain a class they've never heard of. Feats, however, almost always require a printed document with summaries and page references. Same with setting-specific spell lists.
Your second point runs afoul I feel for similar reasons. Base classes are very easy to explain to new players.
I explained the 11 core classes to my girlfriend on a long car ride (when she had known nothing about D&D that morning) and she had no trouble grasping them. "Fighters are solid warriors with lots of specialized weapon-skills; barbarians are like fighters who aren't trained as well but can become stronger for short period by getting really angry; rogues are sneaky and dirty fighters who have lots of out-of-combat skills and deal lots of extra damage during an ambush", etc. We got caught up on the wizard and sorcerer for awhile because I had to explain the difference between "spontaneous" and "prepared" casters, which in turn required me to explain vancian casting (she thought that wizards were more her style, with all the structure and planning). She eventually decided that druids sounded awesome.
By comparison, when I tried to walk her through selecting her first feat she was utterly baffled.
Your third point does apply to new classes moreso than to other mechanics, I'll admit. I'll concede, some people just want their class name to match what their character is.
But not many.
In reality, most people don't just want a new name, they want a retooled progression and new abilities that capture the feel of their concept and inspire them to play such a character.
I don't see how or why you would dismiss that as "writing mechanics just to write mechanics". Isn't that what all RPG companies do?
"Come up with a cool mechanical nitch that screams 'samurai'" is as valid as any other challenge a designer might choose to tackle. And it might lead to shoddy, hastily written mechanics, true. Or it might lead to real innovation and an enrichment of the game.
Just like any other challenge a designer might choose to tackle.
Your fourth point (bloat leads to bloat) applies to other mechanics to exactly the same degree as to classes. "He gets a feat to represent being raised in a jungle? I was raised in the mountains, I want a feat for that!" I hardly thing that that is a bad thing, though. It's an engine that drives creativity, enriches the game, and helps keep Paizo in business.
Occorse, I know you disagree, at least on the point of classes. I want to ask why class-bloat is bad and feat-bloat isn't, but that brings us back to square one.
I actually think your fifth point is two points. "5a", if you will, would be "It takes away from support of existing classes in future books", while "5b" is more like "it might step on the toes of players who have tried to build their concept without access to such mechanics".
I actually feel that the first point is valid, and it's why I feel that new base classes shouldn't see support in future products (unless those future products are explicitly called out as supporting a base class). I want to be able to buy a Paizo book and fully enjoy it whether or not I've purchased all their previous books.
But then, some posters strongly disagree, and are up in arms over the prospect that new classes might not see support. Go figure.
As for the second, again, it applies equally to all elements of the game. If a player tries to make a "psychic" by taking lots of sense motive feats and then suddenly a feat chain comes out representing telepaths, you're in the exact same situation.
For the most part, your post reads as an indictment of ALL new mechanics, not just base classes.
SO much of the ideas and thoughts were put into the game in the ToB in order to get ideas for what was coming out. The ToB was launched in 2006, the announcement of fourth edition was in 2k7. Do the math dude,(...)
Now, add in that force powers function as Encounter powers, and you have the other half of the coin for how they decided to do power design for Fourth Edition. This isn't me just saying stuff to be a conspiracy theorist, this is me taking a look from a design perspective and connecting dots. When things come out within less than a year...
If Tomb of Battle had come out in, say, 2005, know what would have happened?
Another book of kung-fu fight'in magicks would have come out in 2006, and perhaps another after, either expanding on the ToB classes or extending ToB design principles to other party rolls. Because Tomb of Battle was a groundbreaking book, and because many gamers loved it to pieces. If nothing else, its primary conceits (that fighers can have crazy powers just like spellcasters) would have DEFINITELY influenced the tail end of 3.5.
Here, let me try to explain something to you by way of example.
Mike Mearls wrote the Book of Iron Might for Malhavoc Press in 2004. This book tackled the fighting-classes, designing new feats and systems with an eye for cinematic, action-movie combat. It introduced, among other things, mechanics for taking a penalty to your attack roll in order to do something awesome with your attack.
In 2005, Malhavoc released Iron Heroes by the same author, which included.. basically the same mechanics. Attack challenges were there, skill stunts were there, but this was a whole new self-contained game for low-magic, high-octane combat, with classes like the harrier and the armiger.
By 2006, Mike Mearls was working for WoTC. His name was on the credits for the PHB II, and astute Malhavoc fans were quick to guess that the knight was his baby- a fighting-man with a lot of battlefield control and interesting tactical options, it in many ways resembled a revamped armiger.
And then 4e came around, while Mearls was working in R&D. As has been said more than once on the Iron Heroes forum, "Iron Heroes 2.0 is 4e". The cozy level of abstraction, coolness-over-simulationism, high-octane combat, etc.
My point here is that this is not an isolated incident. Mike Mearls isn't some hack who is alone in his willingness to write books which are only "playtests" for later books. In this industry, that sort of evolution of ideas is happening constantly. It isn't always restricted to a single company, or even a single designer; after all, designers are gamers, and a cool and groundbreaking new book may inspire other authors to try similar things. And if those things work, they'll write more like them.
If an idea is well received, designers are more likely to expand on that idea in the future; if it is heavily criticized, designers learn from that criticism.
That is the nature of the rapport between gamers and designers, the nature of the evolution of the hobby.
It's not that I disagree that these things happen. Like every experimental book released in the twilight of third edition, it absolutely was a proving ground for 4e. Ideas that caught on would strongly influence 4e's design process; ideas that didn't would be left for the wayside (for now).
What I don't grasp is your dogged attempts to "prove" that ToB influenced 4e as if this were all controversial- as if a successful late-edition book shouldn't influence the next edition. What I don't understand is your inane hand-waving and glib implications that there is some dastardly conspiracy here, that this was all planned in secret and to the detriment of gamers. And, most of all, what I don't agree with is the absurd assertion that this process was wrong or bad in any way.
...instead of trying to respect their product they inject a book that obviously has little to no sense being in the system to begin with. ...
Ah. You didn't like ToB.
That explains it then.
Um, that post above (which starts with a reply to Velderan) wasn't supposed to go to this thread, and it's too late for me to edit it. My bad.
|
|
At times I have to wonder how WoTC could allow certain products out, from shamefully alpha testing 4e in 3.5 (through the Tome of Battle) to cranking out an entire role playing system to test their product further. (ALA Star Wars Saga Edition) This creates quite a few situations, and I honestly dislike their production policy, almost as much as I hate Marketing for supporting it.
Looking at the ENnie awards for 2008, Paizo won more Gold awards than WotC, with most of WotC's wins coming from Star Wars Saga Edition... you think they would have taken a lesson from that!