Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
A number of the classes in question were very rarely played in 3e (bards were terrible...Really, I loved playing bards in 3.5! They're probably one of my absolute favorite classes!
I really do love bards! And seriously, what other class could be used in "KISS Saves Christmas" based games... :p
/derailment
+1
I think we can all agree that with this post, the edition wars have ended and Christmas has been saved!
Hooray for KISS!
And given that WotC is doing the whole 3-book and done campaign setting model, which setting will this be focusing on? I'd be happier to see a book that expands on the implied setting from the DMG and turns it into a fully realized world.
Yeah, that's one of my pet peeves about 4th. I want more setting books, I'd be happy if were just one 32 page soft cover a year for each setting.
A number of the classes in question were very rarely played in 3e (bards were terrible...Really, I loved playing bards in 3.5! They're probably one of my absolute favorite classes!
I really do love bards! And seriously, what other class could be used in "KISS Saves Christmas" based games... :p
/derailment
+1
I think we can all agree that with this post, the edition wars have ended and Christmas has been saved!
Hooray for KISS!
... but what if you don't like KISS?
Yo Sebastian! I am really happy for you and I'mma let you finish but... KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park was the greatest movie OF ALL TIME!
Finally, please get used to this "planned milking of the consumer". It is a necessary part of the hobby industry. The idea that a book full of quality additions to a game is somehow a bad thing is beyond me; the fact that people are willing to complain about it demonstrates exactly why the tabletop...
This confuses me as well. After plowing through various threads on a multitude of forums, I'm convinced that rpg customers are decidedly ungrateful, judgemental, and all together unpleasable.
Its either.... "Oh god another splat book!"
or.... "They're not supporting my system. This is trash!"
or..... "why didn't the core book include x,y,z,b,h, and f?" with no concern regarded for how anyone was supposed to lug around the massive 2000 page monster that would have resulted if every single rule and piece of material desired by every customer was included.
and please don't sell me x,y,z,b,h, and f in another book....then your ripping me off
followed by ..... "I can't afford the core rulebook at that price."
I have played D&D using only the red box. I enjoyed myself. My players enjoyed themselves. If you don't want the splat books don't buy them. If you are the GM ban them from play.
I for one like to kneel before my book collection and bask in the awesome glow of setting books, splat books, and core books. Sometimes I find people new to roleplaying and drag them into my library room so I can show them how incomplete and meaningless their lives are.
This confuses me as well. After plowing through various threads on a multitude of forums, I'm convinced that rpg customers are decidedly ungrateful, judgemental, and all together unpleasable.other splat book!"
No, people on the internet are like that. Nothing special about rpg players.
This confuses me as well. After plowing through various threads on a multitude of forums, I'm convinced that rpg customers are decidedly ungrateful, judgemental, and all together unpleasable.other splat book!"No, people on the internet are like that. Nothing special about rpg players.
I'm not sure. To a certain extent people are just like that online. But I've found it transcends online discussion when it comes to RPG players. I'm not sure what it is, but even when interacting with the community in person, tabletop gamers often come across as spoiled and overly-entitled when talking about the industry. I'm even tempted to say this applies to many facets of the "geek world" - video games, operating systems, etc.
It's a nasty habit, and one we'd do ourselves well to be rid of.
...rpg customers are decidedly ungrateful, judgemental, and all together unpleasable."
Get off my lawn!
|
Finally, please get used to this "planned milking of the consumer". It is a necessary part of the hobby industry. The idea that a book full of quality additions to a game is somehow a bad thing is beyond me; the fact that people are willing to complain about it demonstrates exactly why the tabletop...
Exactly. But so far a majority (DMG2 a notable exception) WotC have produced Crunch. While a wonderful addition to World of "endless variations on a theme" does little to fire the imgaination. You could say, "do that bit yourself - use your own imagination", in which I could counter with "do the crunchy bits yourself". Fact of the matter is Crunch provides framework for a roleplaying game but is not the roleplaying game. The Fluff is the roleplaying game in which players interact using Crunch. I like 4e from a players point of view (and after reading DMG2 for the 3rd time may be even as a DM), but it's manily Crunch. People mentioned Paizo and their extra books - the only one I can comment on is the Gazetteer. That is fantastic, bugger all Crunch and what is there only slightly modifies rather than rewrities or presents "variations on a theme" what was presented in the 3.5e PHB. Well done that man! More I say, but for 4e thank you if you would be so kind WotC.
I am all for extra material to keep the hobby my live alive. 4e has been termed a boardgame consisting of encounters (played as a boardgame) loosely linked by a story. Repeative variations of Striker, Controller etc with races to optimise the aforementioned and how they function ON THE BOARD does WotC little favours to dispel this notion.
S.
No, people on the internet are like that. Nothing special about rpg players.
I agree that there is a terrifying realization made once you observe how people who assume a certain amount of anonymity by posting over the internet operate. Our behavior toward each other when protected by the veil of a computer monitor and a screen name is a true window into the soul of mankind but like Scott says the internet isn't the only forum where rpgers exercise this bizarre sense of entitlement. I think it has something to do with the way people take ownership of their games and the ideas put forth by the various rpg companies.
The community is so fractured and it seems everyone feels their idea or method is the only possibility. There is so much fear of change, constant complaining, and some really trivial bickering.
More people need to be drawn into the hobby.
God forbid we had the internet in 1989, I was 13 again, discovered that wonderful City of Greyhawk box set at the local book store, and decided to head onto the computer to get more information instead of asking the older brother of the kid next store like I did. If I had read all of the senseless arguments on the forums, I think I would have turned tail and returned to flailing away at my game of Nintendo.
My father who is in his 60s and tells the story of when my grandmother tossed his baseball card collection into the trash with tears in his eyes often asks me.... "so what do you think all of these books will be worth one day?" to which I always respond.... "probably nothing. No one will be playing these games when I'm older so they'll be no market for them."
OP, -you-'ve got to be kidding me! >_<
Complaining about an excess of 4E crunch books while so many grognards languish and cling to a 3E that receives no further crunchy bits! (unless you're into PF, which not everyone is into). Is this your way of mocking our grognard-ness?? ;_;
The Fluff is the roleplaying game in which players interact using Crunch.
I am all for extra material to keep the hobby my live alive. 4e has been termed a boardgame consisting of encounters (played as a boardgame) loosely linked by a story. Repeative variations of Striker, Controller etc with races to optimise the aforementioned and how they function ON THE BOARD does WotC little favours to dispel this notion.S.
Unfortunately from what I found on the forums, fluff is no longer in demand. I have seen many people argue that too much fluff is what brought tsr low. I don't post much but I have tried to argue that 4e cannot survive on its own because it doesn't bring enough fluff to the table. In order to build a viable campaign world you either have to plunder older supplements or develop the ideas on your own. Gone are the expansive campaign worlds of old replaced with feat this and feat that. I like the 4e rulesystem by the way.... just wish it was supported with more world building and less rule building.
|
|
It's a nasty habit, and one we'd do ourselves well to be rid of.
I think things like forums have allowed those who otherwise wouldn't get to comment a chance to comment. How many people physcially wrote to TSR (before forums) and said "your weapon speed factor thing just sucks?" Ok, now how many thought this? See.
This thread for example, perhaps I'm a freak of roleplaying nature and no one else agrees with me. Fine, I don't buy the book. Now let's say everyone agrees with me and we extend that to all players of 4e. WotC may see this and take some of these points into consideration when writing book X or Y. Collectively (on average) we are happy - and move on to the next thing to complain about of course.
Why would we want to rid ourselves of that?
What is "the industry"? I have a feeling that it may consist of people who may or may not have a better idea or solution than any other person. Given that writing a roleplaying system is mind excerise and not something that can be proven by scienific methods. Anyone care to prove to me that a 18th level fighter has a 85% chance to hit a dragon?
S.
|
|
OP, -you-'ve got to be kidding me! >_<
Complaining about an excess of 4E crunch books while so many grognards languish and cling to a 3E that receives no further crunchy bits! (unless you're into PF, which not everyone is into). Is this your way of mocking our grognard-ness?? ;_;
Now that is just funny <mock> <mock> :)
Exactly. But so far a majority (DMG2 a notable exception) WotC have produced Crunch. While a wonderful addition to World of "endless variations on a theme" does little to fire the imgaination. You could say, "do that bit yourself - use your own imagination", in which I could counter with "do the crunchy bits yourself".
Anyone can do fluff. Writing stories and coming up with plots is a pretty common skill amongst RPG players, I've found.
Precious few people are capable of designing solid crunch, though. Too often the rules elements they create are woefully weak, far too powerful, or simply worded in such a way that they function or interact poorly in the context of the game. Designing rules elements should be left, by and large, to those with extensive experience in that department.
I've been plugging away at 4e mechanical design for over a year now as part of my conversion efforts, and it wasn't until this past month that I even felt comfortable with the idea of creating a paragon path.
While I do prefer professionally written adventures and professionally designed mechanics, I'd rather have an amateur story than a set of amateur mechanics.
The solution, of course, if having WotC design professional crunch, and allowing other companies to produce excellent, professional fluff. So far, though, very few people seem to be interested in doing so.
More people need to be drawn into the hobby.
Absolutely. If anyone here is at all concerned about keeping the hobby thriving, the best solution is as follows:
Run as many games as you possibly can, and fill them with new and different players.
It's a nasty habit, and one we'd do ourselves well to be rid of.I think things like forums have allowed those who otherwise wouldn't get to comment a chance to comment. How many people physcially wrote to TSR (before forums) and said "your weapon speed factor thing just sucks?" Ok, now how many thought this? See.
This thread for example, perhaps I'm a freak of roleplaying nature and no one else agrees with me. Fine, I don't buy the book. Now let's say everyone agrees with me and we extend that to all players of 4e. WotC may see this and take some of these points into consideration when writing book X or Y. Collectively (on average) we are happy - and move on to the next thing to complain about of course.
Why would we want to rid ourselves of that?
What is "the industry"? I have a feeling that it may consist of people who may or may not have a better idea or solution than any other person. Given that writing a roleplaying system is mind excerise and not something that can be proven by scienific methods. Anyone care to prove to me that a 18th level fighter has a 85% chance to hit a dragon?
S.
The difference in proficiency between someone who's never designed a game and someone who has spent a decade in game design is enormous.
What we want to rid ourselves is the hordes of gamers who act like they're owed something by the industry. Thousands of other hobbies and markets exist without this frothing sense of entitlement. If it weren't for the fact that a job in the industry means getting to design and play your favorite game all the time, who would want to work in it considering all the roiling hatred the community seems to revel in piling upon those who make their game of choice possible?
|
|
Precious few people are capable of designing solid crunch, though. Too often the rules elements they create are woefully weak, far too powerful, or simply worded in such a way that they function or interact poorly in the context of the game. Designing rules elements should be left, by and large, to those with extensive experience in that department.
By implcation you are then suggesting that the authors of 3.xe didn't have the required experience to undertake their task. There is the "poorly interacting" melee classes verses spell classes being discussed in another thread after all. You yourself present some convincing examples that hightlight the flaws. So IF that is the case how can we be certain that the current authors of 4e are "experienced" enough?
Musings.
|
|
What we want to rid ourselves is the hordes of gamers who act like they're owed something by the industry.
The industry (whatever that means) does owe us something - we do provide their income after all.
Thousands of other hobbies and markets exist without this frothing sense of entitlement. If it weren't for the fact that a job in the industry means getting to design and play your favorite game all the time, who would want to work in it considering all the roiling hatred the community seems to revel in piling upon those who make their game of choice possible?
Drama aside. Many hobbies don't have such a nebulus grounding (i.e. someone else imgination). The ones that do - tabletop wargaming for example have exactly the same type of "forum". Roleplaying is not alone in this. Seriously if you can't take criticism then a job that results in your efforts being made public really isn't for you - or publish in a tightly controller communist country (option B).
How do you think Pres Bush felt about the Mike Moore movies?
S.
So I definitely mispoke when I said contributions between the two were equal - but I will still stand by them being in the same playing field. And I've even genuinely experienced this, especially playing in LFR, where you have both power-gaming tactical geniuses side by side with those who have hit the 'auto-gen' button in the character builder and just learned the rules a week ago - and both are able to contribute in actual play.
I've got little to say other than I'm pretty much in agreement with you here. I do think that it would be interesting to have a thread about the causes of underpowered and overpowered material, but I wouldn't want to interrupt whatever this thread is now about.
Unfortunately from what I found on the forums, fluff is no longer in demand. I have seen many people argue that too much fluff is what brought tsr low. I don't post much but I have tried to argue that 4e cannot survive on its own because it doesn't bring enough fluff to the table. In order to build a viable campaign world you either have to plunder older supplements or develop the ideas on your own. Gone are the expansive campaign worlds of old replaced with feat this and feat that. I like the 4e rulesystem by the way.... just wish it was supported with more world building and less rule building.The Fluff is the roleplaying game in which players interact using Crunch.
I am all for extra material to keep the hobby my live alive. 4e has been termed a boardgame consisting of encounters (played as a boardgame) loosely linked by a story. Repeative variations of Striker, Controller etc with races to optimise the aforementioned and how they function ON THE BOARD does WotC little favours to dispel this notion.S.
In all fairness, having now looked through both eberron campaign setting books, they did much better with them then with forgotton realms. Now if only the two books where not the end of what they would provide for eberron.
Scott, at the end of the day, we are 'entitled'.
We are purchasing a luxury good. If that good does not meet our expectation, it is our right to express our concerns to the producer, to boy cot further products by the producer, to use word of mouth to discourage others from doing so, just as it is our right and responcablity to let others know our opinion on products.
This is the underlying mechanism by which markets opperate in a manner which is not harmful. If people do not, and simply stick with the same product out of blind loyalty, the market stagnates, and the consumer is hurt by their inaction.
Anyone can do fluff.
Ha!
Ha! +1
Edit: Fluff is under rated.
Scott, at the end of the day, we are 'entitled'.
We are purchasing a luxury good. If that good does not meet our expectation, it is our right to express our concerns to the producer, to boy cot further products by the producer, to use word of mouth to discourage others from doing so, just as it is our right and responcablity to let others know our opinion on products.
We are purchasing a luxury good. If that good does not meet our expectation, it is our right to express our concerns to the producer, to boy cot further products by the producer, to use word of mouth to discourage others from doing so, just as it is our right and responcablity to let others know our opinion on products.
This is the underlying mechanism by which markets opperate in a manner which is not harmful. If people do not, and simply stick with the same product out of blind loyalty, the market stagnates, and the consumer is hurt by their inaction.
But the problem is it seems every rpg consumer has a different expectation.... so who's expectation do you meet? This game sucks because of x! I can't believe they nerfed y! They should have nerfed b! I can't play this!
I understand market economics...the problem is the rpg community gets bent out of shape by small sometimes ignorable factors within a product.
Just take a second to look at the 3e debate raging over WFRP on fantasy flight's website. The game hasn't even come out and people are damning this and you've lost my business that.
yes its a luxury good but you don't see Mercedes owners yelling, "This new seat heater doesn't properly pay respect to the old seat heaters! Where is the ten years of seat heating history? There is not even a mention of the old seat heater research team who pioneered the technology in the manual. I am no longer in Mercedes demographic."
"Mercedes just lost my business because the cup holder doesn't accomodate a 128 oz Massive Gulp Soda. They don't listen to me!"
Sure. But the original complaint in this thread was that WotC was 'doing wrong' by producing a product that other people wanted. One that the poster was not themselves interested in, but felt offended by the idea that other people wanted this product and WotC was willing to produce it. I think that is a far cry from being upset over a purchased product not meeting expectations.Scott, at the end of the day, we are 'entitled'.
We are purchasing a luxury good. If that good does not meet our expectation, it is our right to express our concerns to the producer, to boy cot further products by the producer, to use word of mouth to discourage others from doing so, just as it is our right and responcablity to let others know our opinion on products.
This is the underlying mechanism by which markets opperate in a manner which is not harmful. If people do not, and simply stick with the same product out of blind loyalty, the market stagnates, and the consumer is hurt by their inaction.
Well, presumably the OP is a purchaser, or potential purchaser of the line. He is entitled to an oppinion that such a product is bad for the line and that its production will reduce the likely hood that he will by anything in the line. If he wants too voice that, mot power to him.
I actually disagree with him, in that i like having vast numbers of options to choose from, but i don't begrudge him the right to moan about what he sees as a bad choice. Just as i hope no one begrudges me the right to groans a little, because I can be fairly certain that everything other than the crunch will not be to my taste.
Scott, at the end of the day, we are 'entitled'.
We are purchasing a luxury good. If that good does not meet our expectation, it is our right to express our concerns to the producer, to boy cot further products by the producer, to use word of mouth to discourage others from doing so, just as it is our right and responcablity to let others know our opinion on products.
We are purchasing a luxury good. If that good does not meet our expectation, it is our right to express our concerns to the producer, to boy cot further products by the producer, to use word of mouth to discourage others from doing so, just as it is our right and responcablity to let others know our opinion on products.
This is the underlying mechanism by which markets opperate in a manner which is not harmful. If people do not, and simply stick with the same product out of blind loyalty, the market stagnates, and the consumer is hurt by their inaction.
But the problem is it seems every rpg consumer has a different expectation.... so who's expectation do you meet? This game sucks because of x! I can't believe they nerfed y! They should have nerfed b! I can't play this!
I understand market economics...the problem is the rpg community gets bent out of shape by small sometimes ignorable factors within a product.
Just take a second to look at the 3e debate raging over WFRP on fantasy flight's website. The game hasn't even come out and people are damning this and you've lost my business that.
yes its a luxury good but you don't see Mercedes owners yelling, "This new seat heater doesn't properly pay respect to the old seat heaters! Where is the ten years of seat heating history? There is not even a mention of the old seat heater research team who pioneered the technology in the manual. I am no longer in Mercedes demographic."
"Mercedes just lost my business because the cup holder doesn't accomodate a 128 oz Massive Gulp Soda. They don't listen to me!"
I'd say a little more, but i really need sleep.
The WFRP thing is kinda understandable. Very few dead products have maintained such large and loyal following as WFRP mannaged in the wilderness years. Second Ed did really well for a while and then GW just said a big screw you, to the fans again.
Now the fans, are being offered something new. They don't really want that, they want the game they love, and how ever good the game it looks like they will be offered might be(and it does look like it is going to be interesting) it won't be 'their game'.
I can sympathis...I feel the same way to a degree.
|
|
I should clarify that I actually agree with pretty much everything else Scott was posting about regarding balanced rules being a requirement of good RPG products and a huge boon to gamers.
But still, the "anyone can do fluff" thing?
Ha!
Erik you rat, I'm still declaring a win for Fluff and also declaring today Fluff day! 3rd of November, put it in your calendar for next year!
:p
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Look, here is the thing: For me personally, my own fluff is better than Paizo's. Not more professional, not more polished, not of greater quality, but simply better for me and my gaming group. Paizo can't personalize a story for my group, nor can I become as invested in running a story I did not write. That isn't a mark against Paizo or a boast about my own skill, it is simply part of my nature and the nature of the product.
I am in no way offended by this, and expect it to be so for a great number of gamers.
Not only do I feel that Paizo _does_ do exceptionally well in this department, I agree that many GMs do just great on their own.
I believe Scott's statement was "anyone can do fluff."
This simply is not the case.
|
|
2nd ed AD&D Ravenloft Guides to... They were what I would consider well done splat books. Fluff backed up by Crunch or perhaps Crunch backed up by Fluff? Either way you could read them like a novel almost if you ignored the "grey boxes" - then come back to find out how what you just read plays out in game. Races I guess of all things would suit this. What I hope I don't see is "Dragonborn - interesting descriptive stuff" followed by Crunch that doesn't connect in anyway to the interesting stuff. Why do Dragonborn have Paragon path A or B? Why do Powers X and Y occur in some Dragonborn and not others (assuming they make sub-species). More options are all well and fine, but what really makes a product stand out is when you can delve into the Fluff and say "hey that Crunch really makes sense". Too much to ask? I think that game designers need their feet in both worlds Crunch and Fluff. By it's nature Crunch should be short and to the point like a science article, on the Fluff side artist license and flowery colourful prose is perfectly fine.
S.
Comments like Allen Stewart's - that WotC shouldn't release supplements like this, and instead just release adventures - just strikes me as very founded in a lack of understanding of 4E. There are adventures and adventure paths, and those are nice. But hardly what everyone wants - the players, the customers, are much more excited about new books that give them more options, more concepts, more ways to play. And those books work without adding to the rules of the game - splitting up the basics into dozens of books was one of the issues with 3.5, and one reason why WotC has avoided that in the current edition. Trying to castigate WotC for their current release system - while trying to portray that system as something it decidedly is not - would seem to be just looking for something to complain about, rather than being a legitimate comment by a player of the game...
Koelbl, you really are about as impartial as a card carrying DNC member (Democratic National Committee). There's no "lack of understanding of 4E" here. WotC isn't trying to avoid using the same model they used in 3.5., for 4E; on the contrary, they're doing exactly the same thing that worked in 3.5. They're releasing (on average) 1 book per month. What do you think those books contain? Do all those wonderful new 4Ed books just contain illustrations and cut outs to use on your maps, or flavor text? Or do they contain more rules? You call them "options, concepts, and more ways to play", all of which amount to 'rules'.
Or do they contain more rules? You call them "options, concepts, and more ways to play", all of which amount to 'rules'.
Oh no. A game company releasing rules. For a game. Wow. How horrible.
I think i must be one of the few people who can freely admit to looking at the list of upcoming WotC releases and thinking "all that s$#$ looks f@~#ing awesome".
Precious few people are capable of designing solid crunch, though. Too often the rules elements they create are woefully weak, far too powerful, or simply worded in such a way that they function or interact poorly in the context of the game. Designing rules elements should be left, by and large, to those with extensive experience in that department.By implcation you are then suggesting that the authors of 3.xe didn't have the required experience to undertake their task. There is the "poorly interacting" melee classes verses spell classes being discussed in another thread after all. You yourself present some convincing examples that hightlight the flaws. So IF that is the case how can we be certain that the current authors of 4e are "experienced" enough?
Musings.
The proof is, of course, in the pudding.
But the nature of the system design of 3e made balancing new rules options against each other inherently difficult.
You're right, though. The fact that a bunch of professional game design guys still missed those flaws that 3e has (or 2e, or 1e, etc.) only illustrates the point that designing rules is very difficult. When even the professionals sometimes get it wrong, why even bother with the work of amateurs (he says as he stats up some monsters for his own amateur design project ;P ).
Anyone can do fluff.
Ha!
I think of it like Chef Gusteau from Ratatouille when he states emphatically that "Anyone can cook!" What he actually means is that anyone can try their hand at cooking, and should be encouraged to give it a shot. Most people will not cook gourmet masterpieces fit for Michelin review, but that doesn't mean what they are cooking is somehow unacceptable, or that they and their families won't enjoy it.
Likewise, most people can write passable fluff, but only a special few can write truly excellent fluff. I happen to think that Paizo falls into this latter category.
But the same does not hold true for mechanics. Few people can write acceptable mechanics on a consistent basis, and far too many are convinced they can.
