"A lot" is seriously overestimating the number of people remotely interested in such a method of play. Forum goprefers are a small subset of players. People who go to forums who play Monks are an even smaller subset. And smaller still are those Monk players who want to be superawesome outside the way the game is designed to be played.
No. I am not using him as an example of "monk with no magic items". I'm using him as an example of the concept that a martial type can be truly fantastic, rising to greatness(his apotheosis), without relying magic doodads or artifacts(like a Starstone).That is a very desirable concept that a lot of people would like to be capable of playing with on a smaller scale.
Cartigan thinks that because he prefers to play this way, that nearly everybody prefers to play this way.
The logical error is obvious to everybody but him.
Yes, because clearly I am the one advocating that either an ENTIRE BOOK or a NOT insignificant portion of some book be written and published SOLELY to change the entire game such that the system suits my whims and the way I want to play it.
You know what you can do? Go play Conan d20. I mean, due to issues with the Howard estate, no one will EVER publish more rules to bloat the game with useless fluff or excessive rules and it is already designed the way you want to play d20!
Actually, I'd assume that he believes people wish to play the way the game is designed to be played and given that the game is thriving I can't help but say he's right.Cartigan thinks that because he prefers to play this way, that nearly everybody prefers to play this way.
The logical error is obvious to everybody but him.
To add to this Cartigan merely pointed out that a subset of a subset does not equal a majority. The only person in my many years of experience who's even wanted to try the ascetic monk was myself back when the BoED came out.
I know I'm not the only one but it's difficult to see how it's the majority.
"A lot" is seriously overestimating the number of people remotely interested in such a method of play. Forum goers are a small subset of players. People who go to forums who play Monks are an even smaller subset. And smaller still are those Monk players who want to be superawesome outside the way the game is designed to be played.
I don't think so. People who go to forums to express their disapproval are not representative of the community as a whole. I believe there's a huge silent majority of players that's quite content with the rules.
"A lot" is seriously overestimating the number of people remotely interested in such a method of play. Forum goers are a small subset of players. People who go to forums who play Monks are an even smaller subset. And smaller still are those Monk players who want to be superawesome outside the way the game is designed to be played.I don't think so. People who go to forums to express their disapproval are not representative of the community as a whole. I believe there's a huge silent majority of players that's quite content with the rules.
That's what I said.
That's what I said.
But you came to a different conclusion.
That's what I said.But you came to a different conclusion.
..what? What conclusion did YOU come to?
Paizo may actually benefit from drawing in new customers. Stepping beyond the "magic item grind is a good thing" MMORPG style gamers might be good for the profit line. 4e has already shown that there are a lot of people who don't like MMORPG-style gaming.
I would respond to this in detail, but I've said it multiple times and LilithsThrall doesn't care. They'll just continue to be hypocritical, holier-than-thou, and uncontrite despite all evidence to the contrary for every single disparaging and incorrect comment made.
4e has already shown that there are a lot of people who don't like MMORPG-style gaming.
And yet people are still playing it. Quite a few in fact.
Enough that if I could stomach writing 4ed material I'd probably be making more money from that.
You argue that my style of game shouldn't be supported and then call me "holier-than-thou". You're being as hypocritical as they come.Paizo may actually benefit from drawing in new customers. Stepping beyond the "magic item grind is a good thing" MMORPG style gamers might be good for the profit line. 4e has already shown that there are a lot of people who don't like MMORPG-style gaming.I would respond to this in detail, but I've said it multiple times and LilithsThrall doesn't care. They'll just continue to be hypocritical, holier-than-thou, and uncontrite despite all evidence to the contrary for every single disparaging and incorrect comment made.
Yes, I am saying that your continued complaints about how you play a superior game, and thus are superior, to the rest of us makes you holier-than-thou. And your continued assertions that a serious effort be made by the developers to appease your vision of the game combined with claiming you are better than people who don't play like you AND complaining they think everyone does and should play the game the way they do makes you a hypocrite.
And I may not have said previously that your style of game shouldn't be supported, but I will say it now. The TINY MINORITY of people who want to play "Commoner, the RPG" should NOT be appeased with ANY concentrated effort by Paizo to try and even make the REMOTEST of adaptations (such as what they did in 4e with inherent bonuses) so they can play their game that is NOT D&D/Pathfinder, much less take a serious effort in changing the entire game to support such a ridiculous and absurd minority.
I didn't say that there aren't people who like MMORPG-style gaming and to each their own. I said it's been demonstrated that many players don't like that style.4e has already shown that there are a lot of people who don't like MMORPG-style gaming.And yet people are still playing it. Quite a few in fact.
Enough that if I could stomach writing 4ed material I'd probably be making more money from that.
False. The only thing it has demonstrated is that certain players rather pick up their ball and go home rather than call a game with slightly different mechanics D&D or even try to play that game.
..what? What conclusion did YOU come to?
..that there's a lot of people who are quite happy with the given rules, using what they like, changing what they don't like and not all the time publicly complaining about the rules. And don't assume that everybody else thinks or plays alike.
..what? What conclusion did YOU come to?..that there's a lot of people who are quite happy with the given rules, using what they like, changing what they don't like and not all the time publicly complaining about the rules. And don't assume that everybody else thinks or plays alike.
...
Which is what. I. said.
Yes, I am saying that your continued complaints about how you play a superior game, and thus are superior, to the rest of us makes you holier-than-thou.I never said that my style of gaming is superior to your MMORPG style. I said it is different.
1) Yes you did. As seen here:
The GMs I've played with, as well as the players, have definitely gravitated towards more complex, more sophisticated plots than the people at your table have.
2) Are you kidding me? You just disparaged me in your attempt to assert you aren't disparaging me!
I didn't say that there aren't people who like MMORPG-style gaming and to each their own. I said it's been demonstrated that many players don't like that style.
And their are games for them. Whitewolf for example does a rather good dramatic system for roleplaying. If you want soemthign more universal there's always GURPS. You got Pendragon for that good king arthur feel.
You've already pointed out Conan as an option that's D20 why not take the conversion document for 3.5 to Pathfinder and mix the two?
Understanding the industry like I do I can tell you that what you want probably won't be out for another year and that's only if it's already written or in the conceptual stages. Chances are it's not going to be a Golarion thing as you'll notice that pretty much all their alternate rules are built to be compatible with others (for example Words of Power and regular spellcasting can be in the same game).
Paizo's not WoTC. They only have one setting don't have the mountain that's Magic: The Gathering backing them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game is not balanced around the magic items. It's balanced around the abilities granted by those magic items. It's balanced around the assumption that the characters are able to use the suggested Wealth by Level to acquire certain boosts, primarily the Big Six--enchanted arms and armor, Cloaks of Resistance, ability boosters, and such.
An alternative system to provide these bonuses as an inherent, rather than through the acquisition of hordes of magical gear, is far from an insignifcant change, but it certainly does not 'change the entire game'. The basic nature of character advancement, gaining increasing magical bonuses and abilities as they level up, would be exactly the same. Merely the method would have changed.
Maybe the game designers feel that doesn't have a place. And I'm OK with that; I disagree, but I think as a GM I can homebrew it well enough, or work it out with a GM I play under. If no Vow of Poverty was ever published under the Pathfinder rules, I would not complain, or call out the designers for not publishing it. But they did publish a Vow of Poverty. At that point, they have decided to throw mechanical support behind the gearless ascetic hero. And that mechanical support is, indisputably, woefully underpowered and insufficient to that task.
That's what I'm complaining about. Mechanically speaking, Vow of Poverty is a bad option. SKR's responses indicate that it was deliberately made bad, because the game designers don't believe a character option like that should be good. So why did they even include the mechanic in the first place?
I mean, imagine if the barbarian's Rage ability heaped penalty upon penalty upon his combat effectiveness, and, when queried about why a raging barbarian was so mechanically ineffective, the designers replied "Well, who ever won a battle by getting really mad? Realistically speaking, doesn't charging in in a blind rage just mean you get gutted by the opponents who can better assess the battle?" Would anyone stand for that answer?
...Which is what. I. said.
No it isn't.
A low-magic system isn't something you can implement just by limiting characters. It's a whole system change because the system is balanced around the assumption that PCs have magic items that significantly improve them.
You can play a low-magic campaign just by limiting characters. Change what you don't like and implement it as a house rule. It just needs some flexibility on the GM's part.
Been there, done that.
The game is not balanced around the magic items. It's balanced around the abilities granted by those magic items. It's balanced around the assumption that the characters are able to use the suggested Wealth by Level to acquire certain boosts, primarily the Big Six--enchanted arms and armor, Cloaks of Resistance, ability boosters, and such.
An alternative system to provide these bonuses as an inherent, rather than through the acquisition of hordes of magical gear, is far from an insignifcant change, but it certainly does not 'change the entire game'. The basic nature of character advancement, gaining increasing magical bonuses and abilities as they level up, would be exactly the same. Merely the method would have changed.
But is that really their complaint? If that's their complaint, they can just give players all those magic items at indicated levels they should have them. No more grind to get them! That addresses the complaint, right?
...Which is what. I. said.No it isn't.
A low-magic system isn't something you can implement just by limiting characters. It's a whole system change because the system is balanced around the assumption that PCs have magic items that significantly improve them.You can play a low-magic campaign just by limiting characters. Change what you don't like and implement it as a house rule. It just needs some flexibility on the GM's part.
Been there, done that.
That's not even the same thing you quoted earlier! Nor was it even the topic of the previous statements! Get what you are saying straight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly you don't understand the meaning of the term "sophisticated."
That or you don't understand that its use and your repeated namings of people who play differently than you of being "MMORPG" gamers is a classic method of grouping people together into an "other" group and associating them with a term and style to make them look dumber, simpler (the opposite of complex and sophisticated!), and not worthy of respect.
People may accuse me of flaming and trolling but at least I bloody do it instead of hiding my derision behind a mask.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Incidentally, as regards the complexities of the mechanics, I whipped this Vow of Poverty up in about two minutes:
Hell, I'd be happy with that. Build up karma and spend it on a chart listing tiered and level appropriate bonuses and abilities permanently that can't be traded out later perhaps? The character trades having to have gear and loses a bit of flexibility.
So you or they are saying that godhood should be by default a part of a character's destiny path?
You didn't actually read hte posts did you? Because, once again, that is NOT what I said.
Again, I don't see the reason for the continued nerdrage on this topic. The Vow of Poverty monk is a viable fit for the PFS campaign which takes the WBL table and gives it a curbstomping. If it doesn't work for you, don't play it. If you think it's a problem for your campaign as a GM, don't allow it. Case closed.
You've rudely dismissed having issues with UM VoP as nerdrage before. Why is it nerdrage? Because it's not something you agree with? Does it bother you that much that not everyone may have the same opinion on the matter as you?
And it's standard APs I wish we had an option for. And I AM making changes as a GM. It's as a player that I'm SOL.
"A lot" is seriously overestimating the number of people remotely interested in such a method of play. Forum goers are a small subset of players. People who go to forums who play Monks are an even smaller subset. And smaller still are those Monk players who want to be superawesome outside the way the game is designed to be played.
Oh, okay. I guess I shouldn't bother speaking up then. Thanks for letting me know that it wasn't kosher. Guess I'll just stay quiet like I did for most of the past decade and continue being unhappy as a monk player.
Oh, okay. I guess I shouldn't bother speaking up then. Thanks for letting me know that it wasn't kosher. Guess I'll just stay quiet like I did for most of the past decade and continue being unhappy as a monk player.
The problem with Monks is endemic and WHOLLY unrelated to wanting a system change or play rules implementations dedicated to making it so people don't need to play the system as it currently exists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK. None of us have access to any viable polling data, so we're all talking straight out of our nether regions when we claim to know what the "majority" of players wants in the game. We also have no way of knowing whether forum participants are representative of the gaming population at large or not. I would suspect they are more representative of the hardcore gamers, which is likely a minority, but a very lucrative one for Paizo, as they probably buy a disproportionate number of products.
As to one point above that people who want to play gearless monks are a small minority, I will readily concede that (although, as LT pointd out above, there are probably far more players interested in the general concept of less gear dependency). The same is true of any particular character concept. Looking through the APG and UM you'll see a lot of pretty specific concepts that would only appeal to a small minority getting some rules support. So the argument that any specific concept only appeals to a small minority and thus isn't worth supporting doesn't hold much water for me.
All we can truly say is that there is some portion of the community that wants less gear dependent games/less high-powered/less magic abundant/less caster-dominated games. Whether that portion is small or large none of us can say for certain, but at least a fair number of people on these forums have expressed opinions along those lines.
If I were Paizo, I would rate these requests at about the same priority as epic level rules and psionics rules, as something that appeals to only a part (albeit a passionate part for each of these) of the gaming community. After Ultimate Combat and the next Bestiary, I would think you could make a decent Campaign Options hardcover combining epic rules, psionic rules and lower magic item dependency/lower powered/lower magic abundance games. I'd buy it, even though epic rules and psionics rules hold zero interest for me. To me it would be a much better publication than another tome giving more spells/feats/classes to add to the bajillion options already out there, and far less likely to result in rules bloat.
All we can truly say is that there is some portion of the community that wants less gear dependent games/less high-powered/less magic abundant/less caster-dominated games. Whether that portion is small or large none of us can say for certain, but at least a fair number of people on these forums have expressed opinions along those lines.
The problem, though, is doing any of those - properly mind you - is a significantly change to the game. The game isn't gear independent, low powered, or magically barren. You could introduce inherent bonuses to replace gear if push came to shove and the rules to support that would take up a little space but not much. But a low-magic game is a SIGNIFICANT departure from the game as it exists. You'd have to introduce significant modifications to both casters and creatures, or exclude them entirely. And then rebalance loot and other rules around that change.
Sure, they could do that. The problem is trying to figure out how many people want to play Conan d20 that are inexplicably playing Pathfinder instead of buying Conan d20 or other third party d20 supplements that are designed around the game they want to play and use that to decide whether it is a profitable venture.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you or they are saying that godhood should be by default a part of a character's destiny path?
The point <- infinity -> You
Cartigan thinks that because he prefers to play this way, that nearly everybody prefers to play this way.
The logical error is obvious to everybody but him.
I've long learned to ignore Cartigans attempts to get himself off by being antagonistic.
But is that really their complaint? If that's their complaint, they can just give players all those magic items at indicated levels they should have them. No more grind to get them! That addresses the complaint, right?The game is not balanced around the magic items. It's balanced around the abilities granted by those magic items. It's balanced around the assumption that the characters are able to use the suggested Wealth by Level to acquire certain boosts, primarily the Big Six--enchanted arms and armor, Cloaks of Resistance, ability boosters, and such.
An alternative system to provide these bonuses as an inherent, rather than through the acquisition of hordes of magical gear, is far from an insignifcant change, but it certainly does not 'change the entire game'. The basic nature of character advancement, gaining increasing magical bonuses and abilities as they level up, would be exactly the same. Merely the method would have changed.
Since the reason most people want such a system is to play characters whose power comes from themselves, not from their gear, just giving them the gear would not satisfy. Giving them the effects of the gear as an inherent part of their character (even if only by virtue of making the gear 'virtual'), would.
You know why the Christmas Tree effect exists? People like getting rewards during play.
Interesting story < Interesting story + loot
Although if you want a high magic + few magic items game, check out earthdawn. Magic items do very little until you invest experience tying them to your character. So as you grow more powerful, so does your sword. I would by a supplement that explored that concept in Pathfinder.
"MMORPG" isn't derogatory, it's descriptive. Show me some example where "holier than thou" has ever been used without being derogatory.It's not my fault that you are ashamed of having your style of game identified. If I liked MMORPG-style gaming and someone accussed me of it, I'd proudly reply, "damn straight!"Then why do you object when your style of posting and attitude is referred to as "holier-than-thou"? Shouldn't you be saying "damn straight!"?
No one likes being targeted with derogatory terms. Trying to act like you'd be proud to be targeted thusly while objecting to being targeted is hypocritical.
Perhaps you shouldn't use it derogatorily then.
All we can truly say is that there is some portion of the community that wants less gear dependent games/less high-powered/less magic abundant/less caster-dominated games. Whether that portion is small or large none of us can say for certain, but at least a fair number of people on these forums have expressed opinions along those lines.The problem, though, is doing any of those - properly mind you - is a significantly change to the game. The game isn't gear independent, low powered, or magically barren. You could introduce inherent bonuses to replace gear if push came to shove and the rules to support that would take up a little space but not much. But a low-magic game is a SIGNIFICANT departure from the game as it exists. You'd have to introduce significant modifications to both casters and creatures, or exclude them entirely. And then rebalance loot and other rules around that change.
Sure, they could do that. The problem is trying to figure out how many people want to play Conan d20 that are inexplicably playing Pathfinder instead of buying Conan d20 or other third party d20 supplements that are designed around the game they want to play and use that to decide whether it is a profitable venture.
Of course it is a significant departure from the current PF default version of the game. That is kind of the point of doing it. It will be a difficult task to keep it balanced and preserve the best parts of what people like about PF. I in no way mean to say it is trivially easy. However, it is also far from impossible. There are a fair number of groups (mine is not one of them) that have already created their own extensive houserules to do it, judging by responses I have seen. I think there are quite a few others (and I fall in this category) who would like to see some good optional rules developed by professionals at Paizo to mesh with the PF system we like.
Given that these would be optional rules and not change the Core Rules at all, I fail to see any good arguments for being opposed to it. There is, of course, the selfish argument that any time developers spend on something I personally am not interested in is bad because that is time not spent on what I am interested in, but I think that is a lousy argument. How many more spells/feats/monsters/classes/archetypes does the game really need, anyway? As I said above, I have zero interest in psionics or epic level rules, but I know other people do have a lot of interest, and I don't begrudge any development time that goes into catering to their desires, so long as it doesn't change the core rules. Why should other gamers begrudge time spent on something I'm interested in?
And third party d20 publishers and completely different games are all well and good. I've played some of them and like them. But I always come back to PF/D&D, the game that brought me into the hobby 33 years ago, and which still holds my allegiance. I play PF rather than 4E because I believe it held truer to the spirit of the game as it developed over the years. Paizo also is home to some of my favorite game design talents, and I would rather see what they do with the idea than somebody else.
Again, "less magic" is not the same thing as "less magic items" and we should be able to have one without the other.
I stated in a previous post that I realize that all of these things are different. However, I believe they are all somewhat related and stem from some of the same design decisions. I also note that many of the people who complain about one of these, also complain about some of the others. Certainly not a complete overlap, but significant.
ShadowcatX, I need a term to describe that style of play. MMORPG-style is the most accurate term I know."MMORPG" isn't derogatory, it's descriptive. Show me some example where "holier than thou" has ever been used without being derogatory.You may not think its derogatory, but what about your audience? Ever think that perhaps the one you're saying it about does?
The way your post sounds the answer is no. And if the answer is no, that does mean you come off as "holier than thou" with all its negative connotations.
You may have good points, you may not. I don't care. But if you piss your audience off they're not going to listen to your points.
Try "D&D style."