I did say on the whole and as such, the over all atmosphere seemed like a constant barrage of negativity and little in the way of actually being helpful or constructive. It felt to me, for a good part of the threads in those days, that it was criticizing in a whiny way. But hey, that was just my take on the issue.
Early on, I think a lot of the critism was constructive, however WotC failed to address peoples concerns, explain their decisions, or remedy the situation. Once it became clear that WotC wasn't listening, I think things did take a turn for the worse. Even then I don't think I saw many issues raises that where not in some way based in fact or reasonable opinion.
For instance, I totally get why a lot of people described it as being very WoW like. I actually think it is myself, difference being that i don't see that as being in anyway a bad thing. But the way the atmosphere was at the time, it became impossible to have reasoned discussion about the game. I think WotC is largely responsibly for that.
I think this is one of it's greatest features, lol. For me though, I've never felt I had to adhere to specific "rules" to get across what my character does outside of combat, be it crafting weapons, being a good singer, life as a baker outside of adventuring. I just never felt there needed rules for these aspects of character creation. Same goes for niche character "in" combat and the like.
Oh, it is certainly possible, viable and a lot of fun to deal with non-combat aspects of role-playing, without rules. But it is every bit as possible to do exactly the same with the combat aspects of the game in the same manner. There is no inherent need for any system at all when roleplaying, players and storytellers are entirely able to agree upon the results of actions and events within their shared imagined space(sis), and continue with the story, equally it can simply be a matter of fiat.
The rules exist to adjudicate disputes between player?s views of what occurs in the sis. If player A says ?I hit him with my sword? and player b(storyteller) says ?no you don?t?, it is a way of determining who is right.
If give an element the story mechanical resolution, you are in effect saying ?this element of the story matters enough that we need a relatively fair and open way of adjudicating the outcome. If you do not give the same treatment to another element of the story, you are in effect saying that it does not matter as much. Personally, I consider social and mental conflicts to be as important to the narrative of a story as the physical ones. For me it is just as important that NPCs to come at the PCs in these areas as it is that they be involved in combat. A chess game between a PC and an NPC can be as interesting and important a scene as a combat between the same too.
As such, it is only natural that I would want to see equal mechanical focus these areas, as that given to combat.
This was a problem during it's initial release. Subsequently, all of those are now available options. Can the same be said for genasi-like or tiefling-like creatures available for Pathfinder during it's release? As for the Ecologies, they're still there but it's just not an aspect that 4E goes in depth of. Honestly, this information can easily be pulled for better sources like 3e, OR as a DM make it up yourself.
Genasi-like and tieflings are not 'core player races' in the same way that half-orcs and gnomes had become. It simply isn't the same thing.
As for ecologies. It isn't a problem for you, it is one for me. Before the release of rise of the runelords, I basically didn't play DnD. I had played maybe twenty sessions of it, ever, and I hadn't played any other DnD since the early 90's. I played CoC, CP2020, home brews and storyteller stuff mostly. If there arn't details of what the hell a illithid actually is, rich details of its society, modus operandi and everything else i need to use one within the setting, it might as well not exist for me, because i don't have the older material where these thing where laid out. Pathfinder actually dedicates some space to explaining what the monsters are, what they do, and why they do it, and they then dedicate much larger portions of other books to expanding on these ideas. 4e just doesn't even nearly compare to that.
Again, never felt these aspects required limited resources to expend on. Unless someone's looking for an advantage that applies to the combat-side of the game (like Crafting magical weapons) then would you really need to spend ranks on Profession (Brew master)?
In 4e a guy with a Sword can conceivably slay demon princes who are all but gods.
In such a world, I see no reason why a composer of equal skill to the guy with the sword should not be able to craft a song so terrible in its beauty and contagious in its nature that it makes an entire population of a country to dance itself to death.
Or a painter of such artistry that their magnum opus is so breath taking that angels who look upon it blind themselves afterwards, so that their vision will never be corrupted by lesser sights.
Brewers who's draughts raise men from the dead, or make them fight like gods.
Bee keepers who can make honey that is a celestial narcotic, which the denizens of hell would give up the souls of one hundred thousand mortals for a fix of.
Sailors and navigators who with the right boat can plot a course between the walls of the world into other planes, can sail catch a hurricane and alter its course with their very skill in ship and skill, or sail between the stars.
Saying skills such as these have no place in the game to me only shows a lack of imagination. All of these are things that would be well served by mechanics, I suppose I could just say that my players bard based together a tune, and the entire and a memetic dancing plague goes through the evil kingdom, killing man, woman and child, but that seems like a little more power than might be a good idea to allow for DM Fiat.
Those are examples for high level stuff, but any one of them could easily have uses that span the range of levels.
At level 1-5, bee keeping could easily factor into a skill challenges to help feed a town in the wake of a raid by goblins, to calm a towns bee hives which threaten to swarm and attack the town. It could be used to make honey with especially useful antiseptic qualities which give bonus to saves against diseases. At levels 5-10 collect the wild honey, grown around plants with poisonous pollen(which when eaten provides immunity to the poison), thereby allowing the PCs to pass through a patch of the plant. 20-30 communicate with the giant bees of hell, and forge an alliance with them against their devil overlords, and so on.
There is no universal truth, which says these abilities have to be useless.
Yea, in a way. Essentials gave the Martial power classes just more "Stances" that do superior things like tripping people or pushing people around and aren't really "powers". They still get Utility powers and can take Utility powers from the "parent" class. I actually like the Essential classes, espically if your running a DMPC as it makes things super simple and it's just Melee Basic Attack (plus stance ability) and your done.
Everything I have heard about essentials makes me quiet like the sound of it, if I do run Scotts Rise of the Runelords conversion (with one or two changes; stupid multi-goblins under the floor boards!!! *grumble grumble grumble*) I might invest in it, but until then, it is just a waste of money for me.
As a huge fan of Forgotten Realms, I can sympathize a bit here. I wish we had more setting material too, but I also like the fact that as a DM I have more freedom and the sense of Canon is God is now a thing of the past.
If I want to make up a world, I?ll use a true universal system, or one with less baggage, between fusion, BRP, the WFRP 2nded/rogue trader system, and Storyteller+WOD:Mirrors jump to mind as far better choices.
If I want to play DnD 4e, with its mountains of assumptions about the world in the very system; then tell me the %@$? about the world DnD is set in. Or go the whole hog and make it a universal system. The middle ground just feels lazy and incomplete.
I felt that the old alignment system was contrived and only was in there to play up the Alignemnt spells and abilities there were. Heck, I'd have been happy with Good, Unaligned, and Evil hehe.
I don?t like alignment, it is beyond childish, but simplifying it further into ?good guys wear white hats and bad guys wear black hats? country doesn?t solve that, it makes it worse.
Again, another solid aspect I favor the of the system. NPCs shouldn't work the same way PCs do. Espically if you want a specific NPC to have a certain ability or power or spell that normally wouldn't be granted to a class or whichever the NPC has levels in. It always keeps the PCs guessing and it cuts down on Meta-gaming.
So why is it that a PC cannot access that ability again? It is stupid gamist baggage. It acts, for me, as a massive barrier to verisimilitude.
I'm guessing you mean branching out to other aspects like a non-magical campaign, a space campaign, or something therein? I agree with you there. I wanted to run a non-magic campaign and the 4E rules just don't really allow for that due to the powers of Martial classes, regardless if it's Essential or not.
Actually I don't just mean genre. It would be very hard(the the point I wouldn't even try) to play a call of cthulhu high investigation /low(exceedingly deadly combat) style game with the system. It would be almost impossible to do run a game that is a character study on an individuals motivations and drives, and what it is to be a hero(or for that matter human) as you can do in Storyteller games when run well, you cant test a players resolve in the same way that you can with dogs in the vine yard. You can't play get the over arching intrigue and social conflict that you get in games like houses of the blooded and exalted.
You can of cause spend several hours just telling stories about your characters doing these things, but your not really playing 4e at that point, your playing a free form storytelling game about the same people. There is nothing wrong with this per say. The system really doesn't support anything other than combat very well.
But you've mentioned some very strong opinions and showed that while there are things you don't agree with, you can still enjoy the system. This is my same take with v3.5 as I just started a new campaign with v3.5 and I expect it to be a lot of fun.
In theory, yes I can. In practice, no I cannot. I have played about five session of 4e since it came out, because no one I know will play it.
Incidentally, I would argue that 3e is not in the slightest "simulationist," nor has any edition of D&D been, and that 4e is far more based on fantasy narrative then anything else. It's very weird how it all happened. Before the Forge ever started, 3e and it's vocal supporters were staunchly in the "We're proud to be a game!" line to show their differences from White Wolf.
Thirdly, the OGL had some good core ideas. But, a few of them, several people might actually find repugnant. See, the OGL wasn't just meant to help D&D become bigger, it was also meant to destroy the opposition. The goal was to make d20 so synonymous with gaming as a whole that non-d20 games would dry up completely. If you enjoy a non-d20 game, that was running hardline against the assumptions. Never forget that the OGL as designed first and foremost to sell 3e.
+1
The OGL did some really serious damage to a number of games which I love, and this element of the OGL's intent still gets my goat.
I think it was Darcey who said something like 'With the release of the OGL, people will need to justify making a whole new system rather than using the D20 system.'
My brilliant post on the OGL was just swept under as the Last Post in a page ;_;
Skills.
Skills are weird little things.
In the original D&D there were no skills. There were three solutions for skills:
1) You roll your attribute, whichever attribute your DM feels is best.
2) You actively describe what you're doing
3) Auto-succeed.
See, in the original, you weren't a farmboy with soap behind your ears. At level 1, you were a veteran. The fighter was a man-at-arms that had already seen combat. The wizard had finished their apprenticeship and was ready to start throwing spells. The cleric was literally built after Van Hellsing. You weren't mere novices! As such, skills for the most part fell under "Things a seasoned veteran already knows." There was no Use Ropes skill because, as a veteran, you know how to tie a dang knot!
In 2e we see NWPs. NWPs were just that - proficiencies that were "not weapons." But it goes farther. NWPs were (originally) there to be not adventuring related. It was background fluff! It's so you could say "No see, my fighter knows astronomy - look at his sheet!" However, NWPs suffered the same fate as everything in 2e did - they addfed more...and more...and more. It wasn't very long at all before a few NWPs did effect your stats. Suddenly your NWPs could add bonuses to your thief skills, so those were the ones you took. It doesn't help that the actual NWP system was an utter mess. NWPs were garbage.
So 3e comes out and we get skills and right off the bat we all know the problem - there's so MANY! It makes for a rather hilarious comparison to OD&D - in one, fighters can tie ropes and swim and speak diplomatically and tumble across the floor and climb up ropes and etc, etc. In the other, fighters can do maybe two of those? Only one if it's a cross skill, and rather poorly at that. Poor guy just can't get a break.
So pathfinder and 4e do the same thing - they cut down on skills, but they cut down differently. I'm going to ignore the mechanical differences and focus on the philisophical ones, and help illustrate why I like 4e better.
In 4e, skills are things you roll. Sounds kinda like a duh moment? It's not. Profession is the long maligned skill of 3e, and for good reason - you'd never roll it. What, you're going to spend weeks and weeks doing profession for gold? Ok, the party goes to raid dungeons and steal from dragons without you, buh-bye. Crafting was another difficult one. Pre-Pathfinder, crafting was of hilariously limited scope, since only spellcasters could make magical items.
4e skills are, in essence, the opposite of NWPs. If NWPs were "skills that are fluff and not for adventuring," then 4e skills are "skills that are used for adventuring, and not fluff." It's a theme you see throughout the core of 4e - the players can make their own fluff to work best for themselves. The mechanics are there for when dice need to be rolled, and nowhere else. It is, in an odd way, very old-school. You don't roll diplomacy to tell a joke to your buds at your local bar, you roll diplomacy to convince the king to stop listening to his evil vizier. "How do I tie a rope in 4e?" "You tell the DM 'hey, I'm taking my rope up and I'm tying up the unconscious baddie.'"
Pathfinder IS 3e philisophically as far as skills go. The big problem there is that skills are too branched out into too many themes. In 2e, NWPs were "non-adventuring" stuff you used to fluff out your guy. In 4e, skills are "adventuring" stuff you roll while you're out Dungeoning and Dragoning. In 3e, they're...both, sorta? The biggest weakness in 3e skills is that they're trying to do too much, which is why there were too many of them. They're trying to be exciting adventuring skills you roll to do exciting adventuring things, but they're also trying to be Astronomy and Bird Watching.
The problem is that it spreads your skills over way too thin and makes you pay a "skill tax" for things. You have to choose between a skill that will be useful when Dungeoning and Dragoning, or a skill that says "I can make weapons! :B" It also attaches a number to your fluff. It reeks of "Everything must have a rule!" which is a design philosophy I find utterly abhorrant.
Why do I type so much?!
Why do I type so much?!
Because your some kind of machine sent for the future to totally type in threads about stuff and things?
|
Genasi-like and tieflings are not 'core player races' in the same way that half-orcs and gnomes had become. It simply isn't the same thing.
True, but thats based upon expectations. For someone who skipped 3rd edition the lack of half orc in the core book may not have been noticed.
Equally someone whose first taste of D&D is now 4e could come to Pathfinder and ask "Where's the Dragonborn? And the Eladrin?" Does that make Pathfinder wrong? Not at all.
WotC just took the decision to, in the first PHB present some new types of races with subsequent PHBs filling the gaps. Obviously that tactic wasn't liked by some. Even I have felt the need to buy extra PHBs to get the full races and classes to play the Eberron games I knew from 3.5 - but then I guess WotC's plan worked there in a business sense - they got more purchases out of me than they would have otherwise.
As for ecologies. It isn't a problem for you, it is one for me. [...] If there arn't details of what the hell a illithid actually is, rich details of its society, modus operandi and everything else i need to use one within the setting
My only concern with that is, if WotC had spent lots of words and space (and thus effort and my money) detailing how Illithid society works in their assumed setting, that would have been largely a waste for me when I just want to run Eberron where Illithid society is different. The bits in the Mindflayer Lore are just enough to get a flavour for me.
So it is swings and roundabouts really, WotC could please you, but not me, or please me but not you.
In such a world, I see no reason why a composer of equal skill to the guy with the sword should not be able to craft a song so terrible in its beauty and contagious in its nature that it makes an entire population of a country to dance itself to death.
I really like the ideas you came up with for those skills, very evocative, however I fear that such uses would only really appear in Epic tier play and until then the skills largely go unused. Yes bee keeping may help once in a blue moon, but is it really worth putting skill ranks into that than Stealth?
In 3.5 and PF I find I "waste" skill ranks just to justify some background fluff, e.g. Profession (Farmer) and find that unless I really strive to find a way to use that skill that the GM doesn't handwave anyway (because the scenario can't expect anyone to have Profession Farmer) the skill goes unrolled.
Maybe Paizo could have taken a leaf out of Shadowrun 3rd Ed's book where you get seperate sets of Skill points, one lot to spend on the Active skills such as Stealth and Athletics and one to spend on background skills such as Bakery, Bee Keeping etc. This way a player isn't "wasting" skill points on background skills because he couldn't have spent them on adventuring skill anyway.
Alternatively PF could perhaps have "backgrounds" where if a check doesn't fall under an adventuring skill but does under a background the player could make a Character Level + Ability Modifier roll.
BTW I only mean to present some counter points to your own, not suggest that your opinions are not correct ro anything.
Its was never strictly true mainly because class and race can add some powers and then feats may or may not have powers associated with them depending on the feat. Where it is true its like many things with 4E in that this kind of uniformity is much more apparent at low levels. By 7th there are so many other things factoring in here that any similarity tends to vanish.
That's about a quarter of a character's life cycle, and that's assuming that you'll go all the way up to 30.
And, for me at least, far too late. If the game doesn't allow me a character that isn't a clone for several levels, I won't even find out if it changes later, because I'll have stopped gaming several levels ago.
QUOTE="Jeremy Mac Donald"]
This is not strictly accurate - what your actually thinking of is the fact that there is no such thing as a low level magic ring.
No, what I'm actually thinking of seems to have been changed. I'm pretty sure I read something about the character's level determining magic item abilities, setting a minimum level at which you can use the stuff, and so on. Might be misinformed, or they talked about it at first but changed it again.
That said there is some obvious gamism in the choices here - there is no real explanation why there are no weak magic rings and the intent is clearly about game play and not about simulation.
For me at least, this is a major turn-off. I don't want a board-game that can be used as an RPG in a pinch, I want an RPG that maybe has board-game like elements when they can be a useful tool.
I already dislike some of the stuff Pathfinder did (and houseruled them), especially how channel doesn't affect everything, and Pathfinder really has very little stuff like that.
True to a point though I think the Mark example is better then the diagonal movement example which is more akin to a simplification to speed play then an example of 'rules are rules'.
The mark example is a big one.
The diagonal rule might not be that big, but it's still significant to me. It turns fireballs into fire cubes.
Plus, in 3e, the diagonal rule is something for when you use the battlemat (which isn't necessary) and simply there to have a workable solution to the fact that when you move one square diagonally, you're actually cover a distance equal to 1.4something squares (square root of 2, for all who want the complete number, calculate it yourselves and set aside some infinite time for the task ;-)). It doesn't matter if you don't use a battlemat (or just one without hexes, or use no squares at all, instead ding stuff with a ruler and circular templates, like some of the tabletop games like Warhammer do. This would make sense if you're really into warhammer and want to reuse your wargame terrains)
What 4E has done here is say that in the name of simplicity whats being simulated is closer to what one sees in sports then to a raw physics example of moving from the centre of square A to square B and from there to the centre of square C. If you arc around some one your actually moving in a pattern that is more half a circle not half a diamond.
Uh, what? It has nothing to do with "raw physics". If one moves "6 squares vertically" and the other moves "6 squares diagonally", the diagonal guy has travelled almost half again as much as the vertical guy. If they're the same speed, the diagonal guy should take a lot longer.
If we're talking about 5-foot squares (like they are in Pathfinder), vertical guy will travel 30', while diagonal guy will travel 42.43' (rounded).
For me, that is a big deal, especially since the 1-2-1 rule is no problem at all.
So you prefer Monty Hall games where the DM fling overpowered magic items at low level PCs?
An how is a square less accurate than a jagged square?
True, but thats based upon expectations. For someone who skipped 3rd edition the lack of half orc in the core book may not have been noticed.
Equally someone whose first taste of D&D is now 4e could come to Pathfinder and ask "Where's the Dragonborn? And the Eladrin?" Does that make Pathfinder wrong? Not at all.
WotC just took the decision to, in the first PHB present some new types of races with subsequent PHBs filling the gaps. Obviously that tactic wasn't liked by some. Even I have felt the need to buy extra PHBs to get the full races and classes to play the Eberron games I knew from 3.5 - but then I guess WotC's plan worked there in a business sense - they got more purchases out of me than they would have otherwise.
All true. I was a perfectly reasonable decision. But it is also a fairly reasonable source of annoyance. (From the little I remember of playing AD&D when I was younger, I am sure gnomes and half orcs were an option.)
My only concern with that is, if WotC had spent lots of words and space (and thus effort and my money) detailing how Illithid society works in their assumed setting, that would have been largely a waste for me when I just want to run Eberron where Illithid society is different. The bits in the Mindflayer Lore are just enough to get a flavour for me.
So it is swings and roundabouts really, WotC could please you, but not me, or please me but not you.
Hey, in my imagainary fun dimension, Eberron was the core setting for 4e (after all the system is in many ways perfect for the pulpy high adventure, two fisted shenanigans of Eberron, and the Eberron material was by a very long shot my favourite 4e material ) so they could have just described how mind flayers work in Eberron. ;) I think they could have pleased us both, its everyone else they would have annoyed, but who cares about them? You with me?
Again, that said, these are very personal complaints, and kind of minor when compared to what is a fairly cool game.
I really like the ideas you came up with for those skills, very evocative, however I fear that such uses would only really appear in Epic tier play and until then the skills largely go unused. Yes bee keeping may help once in a blue moon, but is it really worth putting skill ranks into that than Stealth?
In 3.5 and PF I find I "waste" skill ranks just to justify some background fluff, e.g. Profession (Farmer) and find that unless I really strive to find a way to use that skill that the GM doesn't handwave anyway (because the scenario can't expect anyone to have Profession Farmer) the skill goes unrolled.
Maybe Paizo could have taken a leaf out of Shadowrun 3rd Ed's book where you get seperate sets of Skill points, one lot to spend on the Active skills such as Stealth and Athletics and one to spend on background skills such as Bakery, Bee Keeping etc. This way a player isn't "wasting" skill points on background skills because he couldn't have spent them on adventuring skill anyway.
Alternatively PF could perhaps have "backgrounds" where if a check doesn't fall under an adventuring skill but does under a background the player could make a Character Level + Ability Modifier roll.
BTW I only mean to present some counter points to your own, not suggest that your opinions are not correct ro anything.
Funnily enough, while I was out at the shops, I was thinking that what would work best for Pathfinder is to take a leaf out of shadowruns book.
As far 4e goes, I am fairly convinced that it would be possible to make interesting uses for most craft/profession/performance skills, that spanned the full three tiers of 4e, and which would work well thematically with the game. The only thing that is stopping me is that it is a hell of a lot of work, and not nearly enough experience with 4e to do the mechanics for them.PS. Thank you for the counter point. I hope that my responses come across politely. I know that my posts often come across as rude, even when they are by no means meant too.
|
|
And, for me at least, far too late. If the game doesn't allow me a character that isn't a clone for several levels, I won't even find out if it changes later, because I'll have stopped gaming several levels ago.
Although at lower levels the structure of how many and of what type of powers you get is largely uniform the actual content of those powers and what they can do varies widely. I have been running a campaign with characters of only levels 3 to 6 and the Warforged Monk is quite different than the Changeling Bard, Human Rogue and Kalashtar Paladin.
It perhaps may be more like that when you talk of the same class, but even then there is enough variety between backgrounds, skills, equipment, race and powers that one fighter can seem different to another.
|
|
All true. I was a perfectly reasonable decision. But it is also a fairly reasonable source of annoyance.
Oh definately, and WotC probably knew it would annoy some people, I guess they hoped it would enthuse more people than it would annoy.
Hey, in my imagainary fun dimension, Eberron was the core setting for 4e [...] You with me?
Definately :) Eberron is basically the reason I got 4e, if I had been into a setting that Pathfinder supported I may have been more inclined to get into that more than I have. I have now bought the Pathfinder Freeport Companion just in case so I PF does now support a setting I am into, but I also have the 4e and Savage Worlds companions as well as the d20 version and still want to run the original trilogy in 3.5 :)
Funnily enough, while I was out at the shops, I was thinking that what would work best for Pathfinder is to take a leaf out of shadowruns book.
Yes, its a simple system, but for those who want numerical ratings to those skills it works without affecting the skill point scarcity paradigm. Its also a mechanic that could be grafted onto 4e seamlessly.
PS. Thank you for the counter point. I hope that my responses come across politely.
very polite :) I like debating and putting across opposite view points I just occassionaly need to make it clear that I am not trying to prove someone else wrong, just express a different point of view :)
There's been some good third party stuff for Paizo - I'm a rather proud owner of Psionics Unleashed and probably the most irritating fanboy that Dreamscarred has had to deal with ;p - but there's also a lot of stuff that I glance at and think: "Oh boy, the second glut begins!"
In a lot of ways I think a second glut is actually a rather interesting and positive possibility. This is after all 2011, not the 2003, PDF publishing, piracy, and global-peer review of suppliments is pretty much the norm.
If we do see another glut, it will almost certainly be PDF only, the damage the last glut did to FLGS has left scars. Given the perfect storm of the OGL, piracy, maturing Social networking we may well see the closest thing to true free market economy, that earth has ever experienced.
We will get something close to perfect information(between trusted reviewer and piracy, we can have a very good idea of what any product is actually like before we ever hand over money), minimised coercion(cause who has money for large scale marketing in the 3pps) all that is really missing from the triangle is rational decision making(but hey, we are only human).
What we might well see is evolutionary principles coming into play on the quality of the product of the 3pp industry, in a way that they just cannot on the works of the major industry players.
Just a thought.
There's been some good third party stuff for Paizo - I'm a rather proud owner of Psionics Unleashed and probably the most irritating fanboy that Dreamscarred has had to deal with ;p - but there's also a lot of stuff that I glance at and think: "Oh boy, the second glut begins!"
Ah, but it doesn't have to. There will be a correction to the market after the first "glut." Secondly, competition is good, and there will always be subpar stuff.
To make something good, though, you need talent. You need an editor, and you need vision. however, it's pretty much a given that you would make something bad at least once. It pretty much goes with the territory.
But I think the OGL wasn't designed to iron out the other RPGs. That was the d20 STL's job. Think about it, a trademark d20 logo, with a license that came with it. The Open Game License is totally neutral, if you read it right, it says nothing about restricting you or your business in another RPG. The d20 STL, however, was what bit you in the butt. I really think you are confusing the Open Game License with the d20 Standard Trademark License.
So Everything you said is true, but your blaming the wrong license.
|
Why do I type so much?!
You know.. I enjoyed reading what you typed. It got me to actively look at WotC's rpg product list on wikipedia, just to find out what you're talking about, and now I'm kinda interested in seeing if I can't find a copy of some of those games.
In any case, if anyone could get me to try 4e once more.. You're doing a good job so far lol =)
Thirdly, the OGL had some good core ideas. But, a few of them, several people might actually find repugnant. See, the OGL wasn't just meant to help D&D become bigger, it was also meant to destroy the opposition. The goal was to make d20 so synonymous with gaming as a whole that non-d20 games would dry up completely. If you enjoy a non-d20 game, that was running hardline against the assumptions. Never forget that the OGL as designed first and foremost to sell 3e.So, what went wrong?
...
Pathfinder is proof that the OGL experiment failed.
Wrong. Pathfinder is proof that the OGL experiment succeeded. Wizards failed by letting it go. The GSL was Wizards telling their old puppy they don't love it anymore and to find a new home. Except that puppy was the Tarrasque, unkillable and unstoppable. It only found a new home in Pathfinder because Wizards abandoned it.
When Wizards announced 4E it said: "Hey, 3PP, pay us $2k for a sneak peak. We'll have a license for it later." Everyone played the wait and see game. So when the GSL was finally released the 3PP said no.
If Wizards had instead announced 4E and said: "This will be a part of the OGL. There will be a new version of the d20 license to match. Hey Paizo, Green Ronin, Mongoose, and other big 3PP: Sign a non-disclosure agreement and we'll give you a free sneak peak." There would be no Pathfinder RPG. Paizo wouldn't have had to make the decision to build their own d20 system. There would be a glut of 4E d20 supplements, instead of the glut of Pathfinder d20 supplements.
I think it was Dancey who said something like 'With the release of the OGL, people will need to justify making a whole new system rather than using the D20 system.'
WotC forgot this lesson. Wizards, why would you release 4E without using the OGL? You were steering the Terrasque. Why would you get off that ride?
All true. I was a perfectly reasonable decision. But it is also a fairly reasonable source of annoyance.Oh definately, and WotC probably knew it would annoy some people, I guess they hoped it would enthuse more people than it would annoy.
Well, the changes annoyed some, and then their way of addressing the original annoyance annoyed a lot more.
There's been some good third party stuff for Paizo - I'm a rather proud owner of Psionics Unleashed and probably the most irritating fanboy that Dreamscarred has had to deal with ;p - but there's also a lot of stuff that I glance at and think: "Oh boy, the second glut begins!"In a lot of ways I think a second glut is actually a rather interesting and positive possibility. This is after all 2011, not the 2003, PDF publishing, piracy, and global-peer review of suppliments is pretty much the norm.
If we do see another glut, it will almost certainly be PDF only, the damage the last glut did to FLGS has left scars. Given the perfect storm of the OGL, piracy, maturing Social networking we may well see the closest thing to true free market economy, that earth has ever experienced.
We will get something close to perfect information(between trusted reviewer and piracy, we can have a very good idea of what any product is actually like before we ever hand over money), minimised coercion(cause who has money for large scale marketing in the 3pps) all that is really missing from the triangle is rational decision making(but hey, we are only human).
What we might well see is evolutionary principles coming into play on the quality of the product of the 3pp industry, in a way that they just cannot on the works of the major industry players.
Just a thought.
Just to throw another thought in the works. What if Piracy originated from a patent rather than copying someone else's work? I consider people who copyright their work and treat their customers as criminals as the pirates.
But yes, you are right too. However, peer review has gone bad in Scientific circles, as scientists have become more and more like priests. But then again, this peer review system of 3rd Party Products is new and idealistic. However, if Stephan Kinsella and Nina Paley, and other Copyright Abolitionists win, then maybe -- just maybe -- the peer review system will be much more passive and much more aggressive. There is something to say about throwing your work to the proverbial "dogs."
When the audience is made the distribution point of a piece of art, the work has to be excellent or it won't last. There are thousands of playwrights, writers, and artists that contributed to the value of human knowledge, but history only preserves a small part.
Machiavelli, Shakespeare, Hero of Alexandria, Aristotle, Euripedes, Sun Tzu, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and Beethoven are great examples of artists, writers, and thinkers who's work survived the ages. Without a copyright on the expression of their ideas or a patent on their inventions.
I pretty much would dare say that the OGL works best when we have the most perfect copying machine in existence. However, the d20 STL works best when we are using the old printing machine system, because an intellectual monopoly cannot stand when you have millions of difference engines (computers) networked all over the planet -- but an intellectual monopoly can stand when the Printing Press is prohibitedly expensive.
In fact, funny enough, that super-tight restrictiveness of TSR is what lead to them being bought out. After TSR sued WotC for making a product that was considered too close to D&D, WotC decided to try their hands at making a card game by the name of Magic: the Gathering. I'm willing to bet TSR would've taken back that lawsuit if they could today.
In a very long post I don't disagree with almost of what you say...but really have to disagree with the above.
TSR was going out of bussiness. If WotC had not come in brought it...it would have been somebody else or it would have disappeared....so the law suit actualy saved D&D in a way. WotC in no way or shaped was buying a healthy company.
Why do I type so much?!You know.. I enjoyed reading what you typed. It got me to actively look at WotC's rpg product list on wikipedia, just to find out what you're talking about, and now I'm kinda interested in seeing if I can't find a copy of some of those games.
In any case, if anyone could get me to try 4e once more.. You're doing a good job so far lol =)
Give 4e a try. I did.
snip for thread length a very long and insightful post on skills
1) Just a minor correction NWP first appeared in 1st ed(Dungoeneering Survival Guide and Wilderness Survival Guide)....also 1st D&D I believe had secondary skill which was your proffession you apprenticed as before becoming a adventurer which could dicate on some of what you were mentioning.
2) I complete disagree with you on your views of skills. I find it rather shallow to be skilled at 'Dungeoning and Dragoning'...and leaving everything else up to fiat of the player and/or DM. I much perfered the skill system in 3.5/Pathfinder than the mess that is 4th ed. I feel I can actualy build a realistic character under such a system that is not a two dimensional cutout of some terrible novelize character. What you call a 'skill tax' I call character development and growth.
3) That said I am happy you have 4th ed and I have Pathfinder so we can both play a game system that we like. Not saying you are wrong to like it...just presenting the other veiwpoint.
|
|
Why do I type so much?!You know.. I enjoyed reading what you typed. It got me to actively look at WotC's rpg product list on wikipedia, just to find out what you're talking about, and now I'm kinda interested in seeing if I can't find a copy of some of those games.
In any case, if anyone could get me to try 4e once more.. You're doing a good job so far lol =)
Give 4e a try. I did.
I have twice already. Both times were "meh". I can't help but think, at times, that I'm still missing something..
he problem is that it spreads your skills over way too thin and makes you pay a "skill tax" for things. You have to choose between a skill that will be useful when Dungeoning and Dragoning, or a skill that says "I can make weapons! :B" It also attaches a number to your fluff. It reeks of "Everything must have a rule!" which is a design philosophy I find utterly abhorrent.
Who says you can't use Non-Weapon Proficiencies or secondary skills in Pathfinder? Who says you have to use 4e skills while dungeon delving? It's not like we have Qin Shi Huang Di's legalism in Pathfinder or 4e. If you don't like something, you still have the option of house ruling it.
I have twice already. Both times were "meh". I can't help but think, at times, that I'm still missing something..Why do I type so much?!You know.. I enjoyed reading what you typed. It got me to actively look at WotC's rpg product list on wikipedia, just to find out what you're talking about, and now I'm kinda interested in seeing if I can't find a copy of some of those games.
In any case, if anyone could get me to try 4e once more.. You're doing a good job so far lol =)
Give 4e a try. I did.
Yeah. I know what you mean. Still, after my first try I can't shake this feeling that I have to play 4e a certain way to get some kind of satisfaction out of it. In a small way, I'm glad Swords and Wizardry is released.
Wrong. Pathfinder is proof that the OGL experiment succeeded. *snip*
I disagree. I think that, even had 4e made their own OGL, there would have been a Pathfinder. Potentially not from Paizo, but one nonetheless.
Remember, I'm not saying that it's a failure to me the customer. I got off pretty dang well! But WotC is the one that had to foot the bill.
That isn't to say I'm entirely happy with the OGL. It had way too rocky of a start. But for WotC, it works far, far better then the OGL.
Look back at my post regarding how the OGL was meant to work. The idea is that you'd start with Spycraft and end up in D&D. One of the big reasons the OGL failed is because this ended up being the reverse of what happened so very often. Players started in D&D and ended up in Spycraft. Worst, they were playing Spycraft instead of D20 Modern. Absolutely the OGL cost them sales.
WotC forgot this lesson. Wizards, why would you release 4E without using the OGL? You were steering the Terrasque. Why would you get off that ride?
Because the OGL hurt them, and was *going* to hurt them when they made a new edition, and a new edition was inevitable. If you hate the timing then you hate the timing, that's fine, but a 4e was going to happen sooner or later, and the OGL was a time bomb ready to go off. And it was one that was already damaging them. It was less steering the Tarrasque and more choosing to stop drinking poison.
Who says you can't use Non-Weapon Proficiencies or secondary skills in Pathfinder? Who says you have to use 4e skills while dungeon delving? It's not like we have Qin Shi Huang Di's legalism in Pathfinder or 4e. If you don't like something, you still have the option of house ruling it.
I do not understand what you are trying to say here :\
1) Just a minor correction NWP first appeared in 1st ed(Dungoeneering Survival Guide and Wilderness Survival Guide)....also 1st D&D I believe had secondary skill which was your proffession you apprenticed as before becoming a adventurer which could dicate on some of what you were mentioning.
I admittingly started with 2e and thus know little about 1e :)
2) I complete disagree with you on your views of skills. I find it rather shallow to be skilled at 'Dungeoning and Dragoning'...and leaving everything else up to fiat of the player and/or DM. I much perfered the skill system in 3.5/Pathfinder than the mess that is 4th ed. I feel I can actualy build a realistic character under such a system that is not a two dimensional cutout of some terrible novelize character. What you call a 'skill tax' I call character development and growth.
I can, have, will, and do built realistic, three dimensional characters without using the 3e skillset, just as I did so in 2e where NWPs were an optional rule.
You don't need a rule for everything. You don't need a skill for everything. Let go of the mechanics crutch and use your imagination! I am perfectly capable of roleplaying without a special ability that tells me to do so.
3) That said I am happy you have 4th ed and I have Pathfinder so we can both play a game system that we like. Not saying you are wrong to like it...just presenting the other veiwpoint.
You mistake me for someone who does not like both!
In a very long post I don't disagree with almost of what you say...but really have to disagree with the above.
TSR was going out of bussiness. If WotC had not come in brought it...it would have been somebody else or it would have disappeared....so the law suit actualy saved D&D in a way. WotC in no way or shaped was buying a healthy company.
What I meant was, it would not have been WotC that bought TSR had WotC not been sued (which in turn convinced them to do M:tG).
( I think that's everyone )
Look back at my post regarding how the OGL was meant to work. The idea is that you'd start with Spycraft and end up in D&D. One of the big reasons the OGL failed is because this ended up being the reverse of what happened so very often. Players started in D&D and ended up in Spycraft. Worst, they were playing Spycraft instead of D20 Modern. Absolutely the OGL cost them sales.
I'm fairly certain that Spycraft sales + d20 Modern sales combined are less than 10% of D&D sales. While people dabbled in other d20 systems, the vast majority of them still bought D&D books.
WotC forgot this lesson. Wizards, why would you release 4E without using the OGL? You were steering the Terrasque. Why would you get off that ride?Because the OGL hurt them, and was *going* to hurt them when they made a new edition, and a new edition was inevitable. If you hate the timing then you hate the timing, that's fine, but a 4e was going to happen sooner or later, and the OGL was a time bomb ready to go off. And it was one that was already damaging them. It was less steering the Tarrasque and more choosing to stop drinking poison.
It didn't hurt them when they made 3.5. I posit that D&D + OGL = wild success, and D&D without OGL is not. It is still a strong brand, but it would have been stronger with better 3PP support. The only evidence I have is sales of 4E vs 3E.
The only real difference between Arcana Evolved and Pathfinder is that Arcana Evolved was a niche variant because it was competing against an strong OGL D&D, and Pathfinder is not. All of those variant d20 games barely scratched the surface of D&D sales until Wizards abandoned the support of 3PP.
WotC forgot this lesson. Wizards, why would you release 4E without using the OGL? You were steering the Terrasque. Why would you get off that ride?Because the OGL hurt them, and was *going* to hurt them when they made a new edition, and a new edition was inevitable. If you hate the timing then you hate the timing, that's fine, but a 4e was going to happen sooner or later, and the OGL was a time bomb ready to go off. And it was one that was already damaging them. It was less steering the Tarrasque and more choosing to stop drinking poison.
Firstly, the quote isn't me, it was deinol.
Yes, a new edition was innevitable. I'm not even sure that it is that unreasonable that it happened when it did, and the OGL allowed Pathfinder to happen, no doubt about that.
But the OGL didn't make pathfinder happen. If 4e had been an editional change, more like the changes that are made to the vast majority of systems between editions, such as the changes between Call of Cthulhu editions, between vampire the Masquerades edition, or between WFRP 1e and 2e, then it is very unlikely that we would have seen Pathfinder. Pathfinder sprang up, and grew to its current levels because there was a very substantial minority of the audience, who not only decided not to up-grade, but who felt betrayed or angered by the changes(rightly or wrongly, there was tremendous bad blood).
OGL enabled the creation of pathfinder, but it didn't cause it.
I don't buy the OGL as poison to wizards, that I don't buy.
I know a fair old number of roleplayers, all over the UK. I don't think I have ever met a gamer who has a copy of a Pre-4e launch DnD clone using the OGL, but not also had at least a PHB. One important caviat would be M&M and Spycraft, where I know a very few people who arn't into fantasy gaming who own these but not PHB, and in the case of M&M, WotC had no competing product, and spycraft, the WotC offering was almost non-existant.
I have yet to see the slightest evidence that these products hurt sales of DnD in an appreciable manner. Everything I have observed leads me to believe that these products where either bought by people who had didn't really play or buy DnD products, or who bought them in addition to WotC's products.
Everything I have heard about essentials makes me quiet like the sound of it, if I do run Scotts Rise of the Runelords conversion (with one or two changes; stupid multi-goblins under the floor boards!!! *grumble grumble grumble*)
Bwahahahahaha. I continue to be amazed that, of all the quirky design choices I made over the course of converting that AP, adding two goblins to an encounter still generates the most criticism. ;p
I disagree. I think that, even had 4e made their own OGL, there would have been a Pathfinder. Potentially not from Paizo, but one nonetheless.
Agreed. Let's lay a few things out here:
1) Pathfinder had an audience because a lot of people didn't like 4e.
a) For the majority of these people, it wasn't the lack of OGL support that made them dislike 4e.
2) Paizo has said repeatedly that even if the GSL were altered to be much more like the OGL, they don't ever want to chain themselves to another company's brand again.
3) Whether or not point #2 had turned out to be true, it's clear that, even if 4e had supported the OGL, Paizo would have been better off creating Pathfinder. It would have been in their best interest to do so.
4) Because the GSL/OGL debacle doesn't change the fact that a lot of people stuck with 3.5 or switched to Pathfinder, it's clear that Paizo would have become the same competitive entity that it is today (assuming they produced Pathfinder, which they ought to have) if Wizards stuck with the OGL.
5) When we reach point #4, we are forced to conclude that the OGL ultimately allowed the creation WotC's most significant direct competitor in the D&D brand's history.
At the point that the OGL was created, WotC unknowingly hung a damning requirement around its own neck: From this point forward, whenever you switch to a new edition, you must take the vast majority of your previous fans with you, or you will give another company the juicy, juicy opportunity to sweep them up using your own license and your own system.
They either didn't realize that they had created this requirement for themselves, or they were confident that they could meet it. Either way, backing yourself into a corner like that is a terrible business move.
Everything I have heard about essentials makes me quiet like the sound of it, if I do run Scotts Rise of the Runelords conversion (with one or two changes; stupid multi-goblins under the floor boards!!! *grumble grumble grumble*)Bwahahahahaha. I continue to be amazed that, of all the quirky design choices I made over the course of converting that AP, adding two goblins to an encounter still generates the most criticism. ;p
In fairness, i am still reading through the compiled material, and there might well be other stuff that annoys me, that encounter has just stuck with me, because I love the premise so much. I criticise you version because I feel it damage that premise.
While i sort of have your attention, if i where to replace those two extra goblins with a trap/traps what would you suggest?
Everything I have heard about essentials makes me quiet like the sound of it, if I do run Scotts Rise of the Runelords conversion (with one or two changes; stupid multi-goblins under the floor boards!!! *grumble grumble grumble*)Bwahahahahaha. I continue to be amazed that, of all the quirky design choices I made over the course of converting that AP, adding two goblins to an encounter still generates the most criticism. ;pIn fairness, i am still reading through the compiled material, and there might well be other stuff that annoys me, that encounter has just stuck with me, because I love the premise so much. I criticise you version because I feel it damage that premise.
While i sort of have your attention, if i where to replace those two extra goblins with a trap/traps what would you suggest?
Assuming he had the presence of mind to slap something together, maybe a couple sections of floorboard he had rigged up to do the whole step-on-a-rake bit when a creature heavier than a goblin/dog/child walked over them, except instead of the handle of a rake slapping you in the face, it's the sharpened fragments of his horsechopper (or, perhaps even more gruesome, Petal's bones whittled to a point?). This paints Gresgurt as a pretty crafty and resourceful trapmaker, but he's definitely a stand-out goblin to begin with. It might help your sense of atmosphere more than goblin-clown-car-crawlspace. Remember, it has to be something he could have done from the crawlspace.
Why do I type so much?!You know.. I enjoyed reading what you typed. It got me to actively look at WotC's rpg product list on wikipedia, just to find out what you're talking about, and now I'm kinda interested in seeing if I can't find a copy of some of those games.
In any case, if anyone could get me to try 4e once more.. You're doing a good job so far lol =)
Give 4e a try. I did.
I couldn't. I know nobody who owns any of the books, and I won't pay wotc another cent.
The only real difference between Arcana Evolved and Pathfinder is that Arcana Evolved was a niche variant because it was competing against an strong OGL D&D, and Pathfinder is not. All of those variant d20 games barely scratched the surface of D&D sales until Wizards abandoned the support of 3PP.
Arcana Evolved is quite different. While Pathfinder goes for the classic D&D feel, with all the good old stuff in there, Arcana Evolved (or, actually, Arcana Unearthed) was deliberately created as a variant game, with variant classes and races. No elven wizards or dwarven fighters in sight anywhere.
Yes, a new edition was innevitable. I'm not even sure that it is that unreasonable that it happened when it did, and the OGL allowed Pathfinder to happen, no doubt about that.
Agreed, to a point. I'm not sure about it being at the right time. But it could totally have worked, I'll sign to that.
But the OGL didn't make pathfinder happen. If 4e had been an editional change, more like the changes that are made to the vast majority of systems between editions, such as the changes between Call of Cthulhu editions, between vampire the Masquerades edition, or between WFRP 1e and 2e, then it is very unlikely that we would have seen Pathfinder. Pathfinder sprang up, and grew to its current levels because there was a very substantial minority of the audience, who not only decided not to up-grade, but who felt betrayed or angered by the changes(rightly or wrongly, there was tremendous bad blood).OGL enabled the creation of pathfinder, but it didn't cause it.
Absolutely in agreement. OGL isn't the reason Pathfinder is there. It's just the first piece of the puzzle.
It goes like this:
1. 3e is released and the OGL is created, allowing others to use and modify the rules as long as they observe some requirements.
2. wizards pulls the licenses for, among other things, the Dragon and Dungeon magazines. This upsets or angers many who have become fans of Paizo, liking what they did with the magazines.
3. Paizo lands on their feet, taking the loss of the licenses that basically were the basis for their business in stride and creating Pathfinder Adventure Paths, which become highly successful due to their outstanding quality.
4. wizards announces D&D 4e, and announced changes to the rules and feel of the game, their treatment of a fan-favourite setting and their treatment of the fans who weren't all gushy about all this together upset, annoy and anger a lot of people. Some resolve to stop supporting wizards altogether, some turn their back on their former favourite setting, some stop supporting the newest wizards game and instead stick to D&D 3.x
Paizo manages to get many of those in search of a setting on board with their own setting which is used in all their products.
5. wizards goes all adhesive contract and endless delay on the GSL, the thing that is supposed to replace the OGL (but will end up competing with it), forcing Paizo's hand, which leads to their decision that they'll stick to 3e and give that another revision since they won't commit to a license they haven't seen. Their decision is later further validated when they eventually see the license and rules themselves.
That's all the steps that were necessary for the Pathfinder RPG to be created, and are many of the reasons why it is so successful.
If wizards had handled these things differently, they'd have the support of Paizo for 4e, and probably a lot or even most of the people now buying Golem Goodness buying 4e stuff instead.
I don't buy the OGL as poison to wizards, that I don't buy.
They were their own poison, guzzling down flasks of green liquid with death's heads on them and asking why their tummy hurts.
I know a fair old number of roleplayers, all over the UK. I don't think I have ever met a gamer who has a copy of a Pre-4e launch DnD clone using the OGL, but not also had at least a PHB.
To add some data to this: I own a number of "D&D Clones". I have McWoD, AE, CoCd20 (if you count that, being a wotc book), d20M (same), StarWars d20 (again: same), Blue Rose, and of course Pathfinder. I have 3 PHBs: 3.0, 3.5 and 3.5 SE.
I think two other people I know have some clones, too: A McWoD in one case and CoCd20 and d20M in the other. They have PHBs as well.
I have yet to see the slightest evidence that these products hurt sales of DnD in an appreciable manner. Everything I have observed leads me to believe that these products where either bought by people who had didn't really play or buy DnD products, or who bought them in addition to WotC's products.
I agree. I don't think many people would buy d20 Modern if they didn't like 3e and want to use those rules for car chases and elves in space. Many would probably just get one of the other modern-style RPGs out there.
And those who got only, say, FarScape d20 or Babylon 5 d20 and never touched D&D were those who were fans of those series and wanted to try this RPG thing. And back in the Day (the Day of 3e, that is), OGL (i.e. D&D rules) was the way to go if you wanted to make an RPG out of something, didn't want to invent your rules wholesale, and wanted to benefit of the system's popularity.
Nowadays, there's a larger movement back to doing your own thing.
I disagree. I think that, even had 4e made their own OGL, there would have been a Pathfinder. Potentially not from Paizo, but one nonetheless.Several good points.
I am wondering if it was more the timing of 4e and the quantity of changes that really opened the door. I don't think that the OGL by itself made Pathfinder or something like it inevitable. I believe that internally WotC believed with their new system and their VTT and online offerings they would be able to draw in more new players then they were going to lose. And maybe they did DDI makes it hard to tell how much they are selling (the same goes for Pathfinder's subscriptions). I wonder if 4e had been more like Pathfinder if we would have seen as big a shift, or would it have just delayed it until they did 5e.
IMO the move away from the OGL had more to do with things like the Book of Erotic Fantasy and wanting to have more control over what is released, then any effect it was having on sales.
I can, have, will, and do built realistic, three dimensional characters without using the 3e skillset, just as I did so in 2e where NWPs were an optional rule.
You don't need a rule for everything. You don't need a skill for everything. Let go of the mechanics crutch and use your imagination! I am perfectly capable of roleplaying without a special ability that tells me to do so.
Ok this is where we differ...you view them as rules...I view them as guidelines. I find guidelines very useful...never felt trapped by the rules of 3.5/Pahfinder as I did playing 4th ed.
Also by defination of what you said in other threads...you want a game that allows you to play characters from novels...mthology etc. By defination those are two dimensional characters...maybe I misjudge you on what you were trying to say...and there is nothing wrong with playing a game like that...and 4th ed definitly is a better system for that kinda of play.
Me I want to play a more realistic person in a fantsy setting(for that setting) that doesn't exist to serve some story or morale lesson for that I like havinga robust set of guidelines to use.
As to turn your last statement around...you seem totaly for having a ton of power(re:rules) to do incredible stuff...as you have said you know you don't need rules for that right? Why do you need rules for everything?
Hope you don't take this as impolite and if you do I apologize...but just want to understand your point of veiw better.
I couldn't. I know nobody who owns any of the books, and I won't pay wotc another cent.Why do I type so much?!You know.. I enjoyed reading what you typed. It got me to actively look at WotC's rpg product list on wikipedia, just to find out what you're talking about, and now I'm kinda interested in seeing if I can't find a copy of some of those games.
In any case, if anyone could get me to try 4e once more.. You're doing a good job so far lol =)
Give 4e a try. I did.
Good news! You can try D&D out for free by downloading the Quick Start rules and one of the free adventures offered at the Test Drive D&D page!
Oh, wait, neither of the two reasons you gave above have anything to do with why you haven't played 4e.
Ok this is where we differ...you view them as rules...I view them as guidelines. I find guidelines very useful...never felt trapped by the rules of 3.5/Pahfinder as I did playing 4th ed.
What was so different about the guidelines between editions that made you feel trapped in one and free in another?
Also by defination of what you said in other threads...you want a game that allows you to play characters from novels...mthology etc. By defination those are two dimensional characters...maybe I misjudge you on what you were trying to say...and there is nothing wrong with playing a game like that...and 4th ed definitly is a better system for that kinda of play.
Are you saying that literature cannot contain characters with any depth?
Me I want to play a more realistic person in a fantsy setting(for that setting) that doesn't exist to serve some story or morale lesson for that I like havinga robust set of guidelines to use.
Good news! 4e provides a robust set of guidelines for you to use!
As to turn your last statement around...you seem totaly for having a ton of power(re:rules) to do incredible stuff...as you have said you know you don't need rules for that right? Why do you need rules for everything?
I'm pretty sure this doesn't turn his statement around on him, at all.
What was so different about the guidelines between editions that made you feel trapped in one and free in another?
Um the lack of those guidelines at all....
Are you saying that literature cannot contain characters with any depth?
Yes. A character is a creation of the author uses to tell a specific story...everything about that character is used to tell that story. It completyes serves that purpose. Sometime depth is added to help the reader to identfy with the character...but mostly it also serves the story. It is rare to find any character of truth depth in literature.
But than again I view a RPG as a much more in depth storytelling mechanism than a novel...nothing wrong with novels...I read alot of them...but if I want to read a novel...I go read a novel...if I want to watch a movie...I go watch a movie and when I want to play a RPG I go play a RPG...all these forms are distict to me.
Good news! 4e provides a robust set of guidelines for you to use!/QUOTE]
Really where are the craft rules that actualy have a effect? Or can I be better at one thing and suck at something else? Oh lets say I don't want my book worm wizard to be at all good at athletics...where are the guidelines for that...oh wait the game takes that choice away from you. That is right...any guidelines I want I have to make up on my own..or I could just play Pathfinder that does have those tools already in place to be tweaked.
Um the lack of those guidelines at all....
Soooo... 3.5 has guidelines, and 4e doesn't?
Really?
Yes.
A-buh?
But than again I view a RPG as a much more in depth storytelling mechanism than a novel...
Most characters people play in tabletop roleplaying games aren't half as three-dimensional as your average fantasy novel main character. The fact that you believe otherwise is just mind-blowing.
Really where are the craft rules that actualy have a effect?
So, again, you need rules/guidelines for everything or you don't know what to do with yourself. I'm glad we got that cleared up.
The logical extension of your argument above is calling a game deficient because "Where are the love-making-with-mermaids rules that actually have an effect?"
Or can I be better at one thing and suck at something else?
Yes.
Oh lets say I don't want my book worm wizard to be at all good at athletics...where are the guidelines for that...oh wait the game takes that choice away from you.
If you don't want to be any good at Athletics, don't train Athletics. And if you feel like your character would be most accurately represented by stumbling and falling every time he tries to climb a fence at 21st level, where the very planes themselves are his playthings, here's what I suggest: tell your DM "I try to climb the fence, but stumble and fall."
I mean, your argument here is basically "The rules don't provide a way for me to intentionally or accidentally make myself awful at something, and therefore I can't intentionally be awful at anything." That is a ridiculous argument.
That is right...any guidelines I want I have to make up on my own..or I could just play Pathfinder that does have those tools already in place to be tweaked.
I just facepalmed so hard I gave the wall behind me a high-five.
I removed a post and the replies to it. Don't make things personal, please.
Chief Technical Officer
|
What I meant was, it would not have been WotC that bought TSR had WotC not been sued (which in turn convinced them to do M:tG).In a very long post I don't disagree with almost of what you say...but really have to disagree with the above.
TSR was going out of bussiness. If WotC had not come in brought it...it would have been somebody else or it would have disappeared....so the law suit actualy saved D&D in a way. WotC in no way or shaped was buying a healthy company.
TSR did not sue Wizards of the Coast over The Primal Order. They just asked Wizards to remove the AD&D conversion notes from future printings, and Wizards complied. Palladium was the company that sued Wizards over The Primal Order.
And none of that had anything to do with Wizards' decision to publish Magic: The Gathering. In fact, the Palladium lawsuit *lessened* Wizards' ability to get Magic published, as it forced Wizards to lay off the entire staff, who then had to launch Magic—which was already in the works—on a strictly volunteer basis.
What I meant was, it would not have been WotC that bought TSR had WotC not been sued (which in turn convinced them to do M:tG).In a very long post I don't disagree with almost of what you say...but really have to disagree with the above.
TSR was going out of bussiness. If WotC had not come in brought it...it would have been somebody else or it would have disappeared....so the law suit actualy saved D&D in a way. WotC in no way or shaped was buying a healthy company.TSR did not sue Wizards of the Coast over The Primal Order. They just asked Wizards to remove the AD&D conversion notes from future printings, and Wizards complied. Palladium was the company that sued Wizards over The Primal Order.
And none of that had anything to do with Wizards' decision to publish Magic: The Gathering. In fact, the Palladium lawsuit *lessened* Wizards' ability to get Magic published, as it forced Wizards to lay off the entire staff, who then had to launch Magic—which was already in the works—on a strictly volunteer basis.
I may have gotten my facts wrong regarding this, then