There should be nothing stopping you from running pre spell plague realms in 4e however.I was not thrilled with 4e from the beginning. But I think if the developers made the Forgotten Realms more palatable to a number of older fans, ALOT of the migration could have been curtailed.
I understand there are people taht like the realms better now. I am not convinced that there is MORE brand loyalty to FR than there was before. FR had a BIG following. On top of 4e changing, Realms fans were told: Those things you like about the realms? Most people do not like that so we are changing that on you as well. We are killing the Goddess of Magic because her type of magic will no longer work in the world.
Bolded for emphasis: I do not adhere to this belief that she was killed for that reason, at least, it's hardly the only reason. First thing was that she was problematic with her alignment. Is she Neutral (as magic should be) or is she Good as her former-self "Midnight"? If she's good, then why does she allow evil spellcasters to do bad things? If she's Neutral, then why doesn't she have as many evil "Chosen" as she does good, or at least non-evil, Chosen?
Sorry but the Weave easily supports 4E magical mechanics. It is a style of Vancian system that is not once un-supported via novels and (non-game) canon material. Game material, on the other hand, being canon can cause problems because the rules of D&D have changed drastically of the the last 25 years and so you're forced to choose which version of X, Y, Z fits best within the setting when meshing those ideas with the rules.
I believe she was killed due to her being thought of as too Mary-Sue for the setting, too involved with the lives of Mortals, and too encompassing as a entity of the Forgotten Realms. When one literally holds the strands of all magic in the world, well why isn't she considered the most powerful deity on the planet?
Not only that, the GREATEST mercantile power in the realms is going to change its harbour into a slum. Lots of areas are now underwater, and there is this NEW continent that just formed out of no where (I can deal with the adding, I had trouble with the taking away)One cool thing they did was make the lowest level of god (I forgot what it was called... E somthign I think). Oh Exemplar. That was cool! But then they killed all the other gods.
I had no problem with the redundant gods. Just study historical mythology, their were MANY redundant gods.
Wait, since when was Waterdeep's harbor turned into the slum? From what I read, the city is pretty much unchanged save for the Masked Lords and the Open Lord changing hands. Of course the Blackstaff has changed too but these are things that happen over a century. If anything the Sword Coast, Cormyr, Western Heartlands, The North, Calimshan, and the Moonsea/Vaasa regions remain largly unchanged.
I was remiss about them sinking the nation of Lantan but that provides me with the great idea of turning it into the "Atlantis" of the Realms. See, in my version, Lantan knew of the up-coming Spellplague and prepared, putting up a fusion of mythal-magic and technology to create a bubble for when the island went under water. So basically it's the Realms form of Bio-Shock which I think is awesome!
As for the Gods, yeah they killed a few but left many many untouched. So for lack of any information those Gods are fine and well during the new time-line. Pretty much the rule of thumb is if there isn't anything published about a specific deity in 1479 DR (current year on Faerûn) then it's treated as if they're still there. And Forgotten Realms still have 3 times the amount of deities that Eberron or Core have so what's that tell you?
Also people that liked the realms liked the historical analogs. It was cool to have the British isles, Egypt, Sumeria, Spain, Arabia and make them fantasy. BUT THEN: The developers say no body likes to play D&D with the real world environments. We must make them all fantastical like the cover of a YES album. Meanwhile people were posting.. Wait we like that, but it was lost over the people that could take or leave the realms saying how much better that would be.the jargon on the internet was: See your old realms was STOOPID. Now you don't have to read volumes of lore to run an adventure. When you never had to before. You started with an area, and went with it. The rest was flavor you could take or leave.
Never liked the real-world parodies in the Forgotten Realms. Made it seem too......amature. Like they ran out of ideas for places to create and they said "Uh.....well we could.......what the hell put an exact copy of Egypt here. And while your at it, make a "New World" continent over across the ocean. We'll call it Mexi......Maztica....yes..." Sorry, to me it just comes across as lazy. Now what replaced Maztica, Returned Abier, is a place worth venturing in with a lot of interesting things and places.
As to the volumes of lore, well believe it or not there were people who espoused their extreme knowledge of the Realms and begruged those who might see something in a diffrent light. It took me 4E's version to really see that the Lore should help you create your own Faerûn and not make you conform to someone else's idea of it. Where as prior, I honestly felt compelled to maintain some sort of canon with the published setting, as if I were to deviate then I'd be wrong.
Paizo set themselves up perfect. They had the game that prior edition fans think are the true inheritor of the spirit of D&D, and they made Golarion the spirit of the Realms only with low power. With all the same creators, except Ed Greenwood did not conceive it. But he writes for it.When I hear how the FR is still ringing strong, I go to Candlekeep which used to be an old home of mine. People are still posting, but they are no longer creating there like they WERE. That tells me something was lost.
I seriously cannot imagine a company bumbling marketing any worse. That is no dig to WOTC, they really did mess up the marketing.
As a fellow scribe of Candlekeep (same screen-name) I can say that a lot of interest in the setting has fallen since 4E's debut. But a lot of it is legal concerns and the fear of any ramifications on creating more "Un-Official Material" called the Candlekeep Compendium. The idea was scratched when the question and wondering how WotC would deal with another version of the Compendium as it surely would have components of 4th Edition's material involved. Then people argued what content should be published and that if it were all 4E then it was a waste of time, confirmed "Un-Officialy" that what's transpiried is truely Canon (as if there was any question), yadda-yadda so the idea was dropped.
Sorry but as much as I love the Realms, there are far far more people who didn't from my perspective. The video games really helped set the base for the setting (they have over 10 at least) but I still don't think it was enought to draw in the most amount of people which would've boosted the setting. It was a marketing gamble, plain and simple and you either loved it or hated it. I'm just one of the lucky ones that was relieved for the most part about the changes (Loved Torm being the main deity in the Triad the most actually).
|
Thought I'd post some of the things that bug my group about 4th here, since a few times now I've mentioned we have issues, just not the ones most people are complaining about. Seems rude to mention that and defend the game to those complaints and not offer up the same opportunity for others.
Feel free to offer suggestions on how you would tackle these things in your 4th edition game or why you may not think they're issues. Note that our group doesn't have anything from essentials though. We liked the game as it came out all the way up to PHB 3 then stopped buying rules since we reckon we have more than enough stuff to run with.
1) I agree that the disconnect between certain NPC types and the characters can be jarring at times. My players are good about it, but we all know that it destroys our verisimitude a little when the human wizard attacking the party pulls out something that the wizard in our party will never attain. It's something all of us at my table are thinking about for either and explanation or house rule.
2) We used to hate that critters that threw weapons never had listed the number of daggers or javelins they had available. The assumption of course is that they have enough to last the battle. I was informed today that magical thrown items always return to the person who threw it. I don't like that much, but will hesitate to change it since I'm not sure of long term effects of limiting attacks by thrown ranged weapons (particularly if a class has a build option for this).
3) Skill challenges are hard to run effectively. I'm getting pretty good at them now, or at least my players keep telling me that they are getting more exciting at least. It's taken me a fair bit of trial and error to get it right though. I think this could be addressed for folks at some stage. I know they did a series of articles on it and DMG2 had a section on it. It's still an artform though. Something I like having in the games, but spend more time on planning than any other asect of the game. Since time is a premium for me, this falls into the category of "could be better" for me at least.
4)The lack of "soul" that came in the monster manuals. I only have the first 2, and people have already spoken with me about it on these boards, but I think a little more about creatures cultures, motivations and powersource would go a long way to inspring DM's more. I'm lucky enough to have many years behind me in DnD and other games systems so I can draw on a variety of info to give soul to the monsters I run, but others don't have that. This may have been addressed already in some of the essentials stuff though.
And that's it really. The issues my group have. We're looking for guidance or solutions from folk if anyone's willing to offer some, but only on the first three. I've already got number 4 covered.
Cheers
|
|
You celebrate Gabriel's Birthday too?<sigh> see, this is what happens when I, as a non programmer, try to comment on programming stuff. I shoulda learned long ago to shut up on these arguments. Oh well, I blame it on the iternet and my free time while on holidays.
Heh, nope. I'm a teacher in Australia. We're on our two week spring holidays here at the moment.
|
You may a free PF SRD for now. That might always change. If I knew they would not only have the core tet adding new material from later sourcebooks I would hav most bought the core book and maybe the first Bestirary. Why spend the moeny when th company is just giving it away for free. It's not a smart business move imo. Sure it may make them the darlings of the rpg world. It also imo means lost sales and profit. Everyone I have convinced to switch to PF has pretty much gone the SRD route and not bought very little in terms of books.
While Wotc may charge you it's not that big a fee and they make a profit from it. In the world of business it's not the company that gives away something for free that is considered smart. It's the one that charges a small fee and makes money of it. If we ever see a new edition of PF the day of the free srd is over imo. Even other cpmpanioes that have something like an OGL allow you to use their rules to make an rpg of your own and may offer the core rules for free. Everything else you have to purchase.
|
|
)The lack of "soul" that came in the monster manuals. I only have the first 2, and people have already spoken with me about it on these boards, but I think a little more about creatures cultures, motivations and powersource would go a long way to inspring DM's more. I'm lucky enough to have many years behind me in DnD and other games systems so I can draw on a variety of info to give soul to the monsters I run, but others don't have that. This may have been addressed already in some of the essentials stuff though.
I have heard this also yet to nbe honest I never felt the monsters lacked soul. The problem imo with giving too much of a description I think is you can fit less mosnters in a book and for all the extra description it means nothing when the creature dies in a few rounds. Even with the PF Bestiary I heard how they were so much better than the 4E ones yet even the descriotion in those books is not that detailed either imo. The only time I think ones needs to really worry about a monster or npc is if they are a major player in the adventure your running.
1) I agree that the disconnect between certain NPC types and the characters can be jarring at times. My players are good about it, but we all know that it destroys our verisimitude a little when the human wizard attacking the party pulls out something that the wizard in our party will never attain. It's something all of us at my table are thinking about for either and explanation or house rule.
I mentioned it before, but this is the GM's fault. If an NPC is supposed to be a particular class, you are supposed to give them encounter powers from that class. The GM has the freedom to do what they like, but they shouldn't be making wizards with impossible powers if they want that kind of verisimilitude in their games.
|
|
I mentioned it before, but this is the GM's fault. If an NPC is supposed to be a particular class, you are supposed to give them encounter powers from that class. The GM has the freedom to do what they like, but they shouldn't be making wizards with impossible powers if they want that kind of verisimilitude in their games.1) I agree that the disconnect between certain NPC types and the characters can be jarring at times. My players are good about it, but we all know that it destroys our verisimitude a little when the human wizard attacking the party pulls out something that the wizard in our party will never attain. It's something all of us at my table are thinking about for either and explanation or house rule.
Not sure I'm agreeing with you here Deinol. The monster manuals I own have multiple entries for all the playable races. None of them use powers that are available to the players. I guess the mistake I made was the part where I said the opponent was a wizard. I'll expand a little and try to make my point clearer.
When the players are fighting a group of humans, say, and one of them is casting a magical attack like a spell, the players say "cool, I'd love that ability. What class has that?". None. It's impossible for the players to get that cool ability, despite it being available to every NPC human in the world if they choose to go down that path. That creates an air of disapointment in players, and is my groups single biggest issue with the game.
We still play it and love it though, and are working through it as an issue. If I had more time I would create NPC parties that worked the same as the players and have them attack. But I don't have time. I use modules and monster manuals and take the 2 or so hours I get every fortnight for prep time to read over and minor adjustments. I guess that exacerbates the issue for us somewhat.
Cheers
Not sure I'm agreeing with you here Deinol. The monster manuals I own have multiple entries for all the playable races. None of them use powers that are available to the players. I guess the mistake I made was the part where I said the opponent was a wizard. I'll expand a little and try to make my point clearer.
When the players are fighting a group of humans, say, and one of them is casting a magical attack like a spell, the players say "cool, I'd love that ability. What class has that?". None. It's impossible for the players to get that cool ability, despite it being available to every NPC human in the world if they choose to go down that path. That creates an air of disapointment in players, and is my groups single biggest issue with the game.
We still play it and love it though, and are working through it as an issue. If I had more time I would create NPC parties that worked the same as the players and have them attack. But I don't have time. I use modules and monster manuals and take the 2 or so hours I get every fortnight for prep time to read over and minor adjustments. I guess that exacerbates the issue for us somewhat.
Cheers
Hm. I was basing my comments on the instructions for creating NPCs on page 186 of the DMG. I never really noticed the mooks in the monster manuals, so that hasn't been a problem. But if someone in my game really wanted a power like those, I'd probably adjust it into an appropriate class power and let them.
|
|
Hm. I was basing my comments on the instructions for creating NPCs on page 186 of the DMG. I never really noticed the mooks in the monster manuals, so that hasn't been a problem. But if someone in my game really wanted a power like those, I'd probably adjust it into an appropriate class power and let them.
Yep, that's exactly what we're tinkering with. Since I don't have the same number of years under my belt with 4th ed though, I'm more cautious about it though. A work in progress I guess.
Cheers
Hm. I was basing my comments on the instructions for creating NPCs on page 186 of the DMG. I never really noticed the mooks in the monster manuals, so that hasn't been a problem. But if someone in my game really wanted a power like those, I'd probably adjust it into an appropriate class power and let them.Yep, that's exactly what we're tinkering with. Since I don't have the same number of years under my belt with 4th ed though, I'm more cautious about it though. A work in progress I guess.
Cheers
Actually, my primary game is Pathfinder. I have more experience with Gamma World than straight 4E. "Why can't I have that power?" is explained by "You weren't born that way." in Gamma World.
I've been itching to play some Dark Sun though.
|
|
...I think that Paizo's original suggestion that 4e couldn't be used for their sort of campaigns was disingenuous...Agreed...and I'll raise you a "we can't tell the stories we want to tell without the supplementary material found in Ultimate _____________."
Link please.
Edit: I am asking because I do recall something along those lines, but that it would have be stretched far to reach that particular statement. I recall it being more along the lines of them wanting to use the supplementary material because it improves the product rather than them being completely unable to make an Oriental adventure path without a class called "Ninja."
While I'm at it, I'm wondering if anyone has the link to the exact quote Aubrey the Malformed is referencing.
Here is what a quick search pulled up, here is a link to Vic Wertz seeming to say that the never said what Aubrey the Malformed mentioned.
Finally, we did NOT say "we *can't* tell the stories we want to." That's a manipulation of our words. We said that we believe the *best* system to tell our stories is a 3.5 OGL foundation.
It was something James said, but for the life of me I can't remember where - it would have been at the time of the 4e release or thereabouts. It could be my memory is faulty - certainly, I don't recall Vic ever saying it, but I'm pretty sure James said it. I don't think it really matters either way now - water under the bridge.
|
|
Thought I'd post some of the things that bug my group about 4th here, since a few times now I've mentioned we have issues, just not the ones most people are complaining about. Seems rude to mention that and defend the game to those complaints and not offer up the same opportunity for others.
Feel free to offer suggestions on how you would tackle these things in your 4th edition game or why you may not think they're issues. Note that our group doesn't have anything from essentials though. We liked the game as it came out all the way up to PHB 3 then stopped buying rules since we reckon we have more than enough stuff to run with.
1) I agree that the disconnect between certain NPC types and the characters can be jarring at times. My players are good about it, but we all know that it destroys our verisimitude a little when the human wizard attacking the party pulls out something that the wizard in our party will never attain. It's something all of us at my table are thinking about for either and explanation or house rule.
2) We used to hate that critters that threw weapons never had listed the number of daggers or javelins they had available. The assumption of course is that they have enough to last the battle. I was informed today that magical thrown items always return to the person who threw it. I don't like that much, but will hesitate to change it since I'm not sure of long term effects of limiting attacks by thrown ranged weapons (particularly if a class has a build option for this).
3) Skill challenges are hard to run effectively. I'm getting pretty good at them now, or at least my players keep telling me that they are getting more exciting at least. It's taken me a fair bit of trial and error to get it right though. I think this could be addressed for folks at some stage. I know they did a series of articles on it and DMG2 had a section on it. It's still an artform though. Something I like having in the games, but spend more time on planning than any other asect of the game. Since time is a...
I only have found 3 to be a problem in my game. Skill challenges are quite hard and can be jarring in immersion terms. It's not something I've fully worked out yet.
If not being able to copy a monster's abilities wrecks your games, I can't imagine how you played D&D before 3e came along.
( The joke is that I severely doubt you did )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yay, I go to sleep and the thread explodes (again), including lots of people who didn't understand my arguments. I guess I am to blame too, since I could perhaps have been clearer.
I do not disparage World of Warcraft. I spent bloody oceans of time on it, and most of that time, I consider time well spent. I loved their system, because it was intuitive, slick, easy to learn, and all sorts of awesome. It is no great wonder that 4th edition took lots of concepts from it, much like the way 3rd edition took cues from Diablo. However, that is, sadly, where the similarities stop.
3rd edition took the stuff from Diablo that they felt would improve the game, and reshaped them to fit the activity of D&D. This was done sensibly, in a limited way, and mindful of the price of such incorporation. Sure, you could claim that there is more than that, but you'd have to ignore a very clear statement in the fact that they DID make Diablo D&D - a product that had very different philosophies in it compared to 3rd edition.
By contrast, when they made 4th edition, they did not reshape the material for the activity of D&D. Instead they put it in more or less wholesale, and pushed a philosophy that the activity of D&D was now something DIFFERENT from what it had been (compare to the comments about 3rd edition on the launch of 4dventure...) The focus was on combat, since every power in the game now had exclusively (or almost exclusively) combat applications. Beyond that, roleplaying was given almost no system functions. Setting exploration was scuppered through the points of light assumed setting, and the very clear message of the nuking of the Forgotten Realms setting (so as not to have lots of backstory in a setting, because backstory is a bad thing...)
I suspect the process was something like it usually is. A company needs a new product, a big one. They make a few bullet points on what they want from it, and make an alpha version based on these design points. Then this version is battered through various focus groups, whose main function is to see that nobody is, or could be, offended by the product. As a consequence, everything that stands out, or otherwise could evoke an emotional response is filtered out quietly. At best, this becomes a lacklustre mass of product-shaped object, whether it's movies, or, I think, games.
Then comes the fun part, in the final processing. The bean-counters decide that the product needs to generate money running, so they tie it to a prenumeration model (look how much money WoW is making, we need something like that too!). Cue the digital initiative. Oh well, at least we got a magnificent 3D-tabletop computer environment, right? =) Then legal gets final pass on the product, and decide that everything will be better for the company if everything is trademarkable, hence the bladerager trolls and similar drek, that was pointed out to me that it began before 4th edition and was no better then than it was later.
My suspicion is that Wizards of the Coast when they made 3rd edition was a very different beast than Wizards of the Coast under Hasbro when they made 4th edition, and we see the consequences clearly in the products.
That's not to say you can't play 4th edition and have fun with it. You can probably play F.A.T.A.L. and have fun with it, if you just fix the system up a little and ignore various stupid parts. I did play 4th for a while, and I liked my character. We fought through a few of the early adventures. Some had various good points, I liked some maps, for example, but it was all combat. I tried some roleplaying, to interact with the world around my character, but the setting was sadly points of light which gave a very limited scope, no societies to consider beyond the starting keep, and so on. Eventually you just give in and fight instead. So we did that. And we found that every combat takes a good long while, simply because the monsters have the aforementioned oodles of hit points.
What 4th edition did, then, was simplify the activity of tabletop gaming beyond the point where it would have been a good idea. And the simplification was not in what rules there was, but for all those other things you could want your character to do beyond fighting the next group of thunderscreamer air elementals (tm), dirgehowler air elementals (tm) and icewindbreather air elementals (tm). And to compensate for the added efficiency of fighting, stuff got more hp instead so combat still takes just as much time.
4th edition taking cues from WoW is not in itself a bad thing. It's just that out-WoW-ing WoW with a tabletop RPG has always been a stupid idea.
|
|
The 1d4 for an improvised weapon seems like a great place to start - I'd give the creature 1/2 rounded up of whatever bonus it normally gets for its basic attack as well and call it good.
Thanks for the suggestion, though TBH it was an example of how having different building blocks for NPCS & monsters differing from PCs can introduce ambiguity and the need for an arbitrary GM call. For many people DM fiat in that respect is fine, but for me I would prefer my knowledge of how PCs work to provide some support.
disarming minions is pretty uncommonYes, they normally just die. I suppose if you want to question one it's plausible, but it's also worth pointing that (for better or ill) there is no disarming mechanic in 4e anyway.
There is no general mechanic for disarming, but there are powers for disarming (albeit a level 17 firghter power; Exorcism of Steel), and also PCs are free to try to remove someone's weapon before combat begins (e.g. surprise the guards while their swords lay across the table and kick the table over sending the swords flying).
|
|
@ Ciretose - Someone mentioned earlier that all the base classes are available as free downloads. I'll check at some stage (since i own the PhB's I haven't bothered yet).
Something else to consider for what you've been saying. For the cost of $10 a month I can have access to every adventure, setting suppliment, rules additions and imagry created in Dungeon and Dragon for 4th edition. I can also have access to rules, though only online. I can have a character building tool and a monster building tool.
That's less than your subscirption (I believe), and gives me all the functionality you're quoting as Pathfinder benefits.
Or you get all of the rules for free, forever.
And the rest kind of goes to my "They did it for the subscription fee" argument.
Closed content vs open content.
|
|
You may a free PF SRD for now. That might always change.
Not likely, given the business model, as I explained in detail.
WoTC wants a closed system for rules, because that is the core product they sell.
Paizo wants an open system for rules, because they make money on the modules and adventure paths.
That is why the rule book PDFs are 9.99 while the AP's PDF are 13.99.
|
|
There is no general mechanic for disarming, but there are powers for disarming (albeit a level 17 firghter power; Exorcism of Steel), and also PCs are free to try to remove someone's weapon before combat begins (e.g. surprise the guards while their swords lay across the table and kick the table over sending the swords flying).
Well, the latter isn't really a mechanic. I wasn't aware of Exorcism of Steel - I'll have to look it up.
|
|
If not being able to copy a monster's abilities wrecks your games, I can't imagine how you played D&D before 3e came along.
( The joke is that I severely doubt you did )
Not having a monsters powers doesn't worry my freinds and I at all.
Not being able to use a power that an enemy of a playable race pulls out wouldn't be an issue in isolated cases either.
Not being able to ever use the powers that enemies from the playable races constantly come up with and use against the PC's begins to broach the reasonable bounds of "Why not?". It's just a strange decision to make when enemy entries in the DM guide. They could just have easily placed power descriptions of things the playable classes use with the playable race opponents.
It's been pointed out I could just create NPC enemies from playable classes. I of course don't have time to this regularly so I use modules and monsters as printed.
Of course, this doesn't wreck our game play. We still play. We still have fun. It just happens to be our biggest gripe with the design of the game so far. Of course, we could just come up with some type of Good side/Dark side concept but most of us at my table are a little more discerning than that.
Thanks for the helpful advice and insightful reasons why it's not such an issue for you though. It was helpful.
Cheers
|
|
Not likely, given the business model, as I explained in detail.WoTC wants a closed system for rules, because that is the core product they sell.
Paizo wants an open system for rules, because they make money on the modules and adventure paths.
That is why the rule book PDFs are 9.99 while the AP's PDF are 13.99.
If it was up to me I would have given the core and the first Bestieary away for free the rest I would have charged a small fee. By giving it all away for free they are making it so that no one has to buy theur books. I can recommend somoeone buy Pathfinder and support Paizo yet if they know about the SRD and getting all the rules for free well their going to go for the free option. As gamers just like everyone else including me are cheap. The core book cost me 60$. The PDF of the same book 10$. The SRD nothing. Which do you think gamers will use.
I think Paizo is the only rpg company that offers all their rules for free. Some other rpg companies offer some yet not to the level that Paizo does. They want to get fans wit the free material yet at the same time want to make some profit. Personally I think Paizo shoot themselves in the foot. If they ever start charging gamers to get stuff from the SRD their will be a huge uproar imo. Not neccesaarily good for Paizo. Their SRD as a fam of the game looks like a good thing. From someone who almost started his own business not at all. They offered an option that makes it so that you do not have to purchase anything from them as a company. That's not a good thing. A limited amount of open content is a good thing. Everything not at all. Gamers seem to think that all it takes for a company to survive is goodwill and only goodwill. Maybe in a perfect world except we don't live in one.
Yes they make money from the APs and modules yet I'm sure the rulebooks also bring in some money. If a person buys the core, Bestirary 1 and a GM shield that abou 120$ The average AP also cost that much. The thing is imo they are guarenteed to sell those books as you need to have at least those 3 products to run a session. Depending on how good the APs they can hit or miss. And eventually people might stop buying APs because after you have 5-6 you cna always rerun and reuse them. Unlike an AP you will always use those 3 books. I have 6-7 APS I barely even read through them anymore unless I'm running one.
Not likely, given the business model, as I explained in detail.WoTC wants a closed system for rules, because that is the core product they sell.
Paizo wants an open system for rules, because they make money on the modules and adventure paths.
That is why the rule book PDFs are 9.99 while the AP's PDF are 13.99.
If it was up to me I would have given the core and the first Bestieary away for free the rest I would have charged a small fee. By giving it all away for free they are making it so that no one has to buy theur books. I can recommend somoeone buy Pathfinder and support Paizo yet if they know about the SRD and getting all the rules for free well their going to go for the free option. As gamers just like everyone else including me are cheap. The core book cost me 60$. The PDF of the same book 10$. The SRD nothing. Which do you think gamers will use.
I think Paizo is the only rpg company that offers all their rules for free. Some other rpg companies offer some yet not to the level that Paizo does. They want to get fans wit the free material yet at the same time want to make some profit. Personally I think Paizo shoot themselves in the foot. If they ever start charging gamers to get stuff from the SRD their will be a huge uproar imo. Not neccesaarily good for Paizo. Their SRD as a fam of the game looks like a good thing. From someone who almost started his own business not at all. They offered an option that makes it so that you do not have to purchase anything from them as a company. That's not a good thing. A limited amount of open content is a good thing. Everything not at all. Gamers seem to think that all it takes for a company to survive is goodwill and only goodwill. Maybe in a perfect world except we don't live in one.
Yes they make money from the APs and modules yet I'm sure the rulebooks also bring in some money. If a person buys the core, Bestirary 1 and a GM shield that abou 120$ The average AP also cost that much. The thing is imo they are...
While it would be interesting to see how the free srd has affected sales of core books, I wouldn't necessarily agree that everybody would choose a free option.
I solely rely on the SRD when I game, however I have purchased the core books, with ultimate magic, and ultimate combat because:
1 - I still like having books at the gaming table, call me old-fashioned but I have a room full of books and accessories from a ton of different systems and it doesn't feel natural to me to not have them available.
2- Not everyone at my gaming table has access to the internet, so we have the books at our disposal for them.
You make a valid point about giving away everything for free, however a little goodwill does go a long way. I have purchased some 3rd party products from the Paizo website, because their focus on the customers seems first-rate! Scan the customer service forums and you can see that "customer first" approach in action.
Plus, ultimately Paizo I am sure has accountants who would say "stop giving away everything for free, or we're doomed!" If that was the case, so sales must be somewhat decent.
I also think you are right when you say if they started to charge for SRD there would be an uproar, people get used to freebies...
|
|
Not likely, given the business model, as I explained in detail.WoTC wants a closed system for rules, because that is the core product they sell.
Paizo wants an open system for rules, because they make money on the modules and adventure paths.
That is why the rule book PDFs are 9.99 while the AP's PDF are 13.99.
If it was up to me I would have given the core and the first Bestieary away for free the rest I would have charged a small fee. By giving it all away for free they are making it so that no one has to buy theur books. I can recommend somoeone buy Pathfinder and support Paizo yet if they know about the SRD and getting all the rules for free well their going to go for the free option. As gamers just like everyone else including me are cheap. The core book cost me 60$. The PDF of the same book 10$. The SRD nothing. Which do you think gamers will use.
I think Paizo is the only rpg company that offers all their rules for free. Some other rpg companies offer some yet not to the level that Paizo does. They want to get fans wit the free material yet at the same time want to make some profit. Personally I think Paizo shoot themselves in the foot. If they ever start charging gamers to get stuff from the SRD their will be a huge uproar imo. Not neccesaarily good for Paizo. Their SRD as a fam of the game looks like a good thing. From someone who almost started his own business not at all. They offered an option that makes it so that you do not have to purchase anything from them as a company. That's not a good thing. A limited amount of open content is a good thing. Everything not at all. Gamers seem to think that all it takes for a company to survive is goodwill and only goodwill. Maybe in a perfect world except we don't live in one.
Here is the real Paizo business model
Let us say that for every 100 pages a hardcover book costs 10 dollars to make and have shipped to your warehouse (which is pretty close actually). To make a 500 page core rulebook costs about 50 dollars.
Sell it for 60, you make 10 bucks profit.
This is a one time purchase that will last for years and years.
Now lets look at an AP. It is a 96 page softcover that probably costs less than $5 dollars to make.
You sell one for 20 bucks, you make 15 dollars profit.
And unlike your well used Rulebook, you can probably only use it once (either to run or play). And you need 6 of them for an entire AP.
Core Book = 10 dollars profit, single purchase, not disposable. A gamer isn’t going to buy more than one every few years.
One AP = 15 dollars profit, single use, need 6 to run an AP (90 dollar profit for an AP) and if you have a weekly game it is pretty much made for you.
Modules are even cheaper to make, and just as consumable a resource.
They don’t give it away for altruism. They give it away so you will want to play their free product more than the other guys, and play it often.
Because they know every time you play a module or scenario, that is effectively a burned resource you will need to replace buying a new module.
Sure they like the 10 bucks they make on the Rule Books, but the real money is in the modules and Adventure Paths.
It's like building roads because you sell cars.
Here is the real Paizo business model
Let us say that for every 100 pages a hardcover book costs 10 dollars to make and have shipped to your warehouse (which is pretty close actually). To make a 500 page core rulebook costs about 50 dollars.
Sell it for 60, you make 10 bucks profit.
This is a one time purchase that will last for years and years.
Now lets look at an AP. It is a 96 page softcover that probably costs less than $5 dollars to make.
You sell one for 20 bucks, you make 15 dollars profit.
And unlike your well used Rulebook, you can probably only use it once (either to run or play). And you need 6 of them for an entire AP.
Core Book = 10 dollars profit, single purchase, not disposable. A gamer isn’t going to buy more than one every few years.
One AP = 15 dollars profit, single use, need 6 to run an AP (90 dollar profit for an AP) and if you have a weekly game it is pretty much made for you.
Modules are even cheaper to make, and just as consumable a resource.
They don’t give it away for altruism. They give it away so you will want to play their free product more than the other guys, and play it often.
Because they know every time you play a module or scenario, that is effectively a burned resource you will need to replace buying a new module.
Sure they like the 10 bucks they make on the Rule Books, but the real money is in the modules and Adventure Paths.
It's like building roads because you sell cars.
No offense, but there are numerous basic problems with your analysis. A few obvious ones that jump out:
* You seem to have completely skipped wholesaling and distribution.
* You also overlooked quantity and its effect on costs. Rule books sell a large number of copies, driving down per unit fixed cost and improving margins.
I believe that what you outlined was the business model when Pathfinder RPG was conceived. I do not believe that is still the case. If nothing else, the current pace of so-called "crunchy" releases is well in excess of what the old model requires. If the profit picture for supplements is as dismal as you suggest, it's difficult to imagine why Paizo is producing so many.
The Response :)
I acknowledged that many people like the realms. I just don't think it drew in more people.
The Historical analogues had nothing to do with Laziness. I am a historic re-enactor. I liked the analogues in the realm, and thought it was great to take the very large amount of information I had with historical cultures and transplant that into the realms. I found it as a strength. But note, less than half the areas were actual analogs. There was no analog to THAY, Waterdeep, Moonsea, Heartlands, North. Actually a very small amount was historical analog.
If you were running the realms, it is YOUR realms. WHY OH WHY would any one feel they had to stick to the canon if they didn't want too. There was essentially no difference between running a game of Star Wars or Running the Realms. Both were established properties.
Lots of Lore is a strength, not a weakness. I honestly feel the argument that the lore needed to be toned to intellectual laziness, the same way you feel about historical analogs. A little bit of reading will get you a long way.
Diffan you are kind of making my point. The people that WANTED the realms to change were not the core fans of the Realms. Most of those people would have been happy to have 4e still support the old faerun. it was as even you elude to, a gamble to get more people into the realms. I do not think it paid off.
The argument of "I would love to run a game in the realms, but there is too much lore," rings hollow. The LORe is what made the realms. Why would you want to run a game in the campaign setting if you did not want the lore. Use the map, and make it your own.
Characters too high level? Reduce them in level. get rid of them. Do something you want to do with them. My experience is people that did not know the realms well, knew most of it from the novels. THEN when they played, they made connections and it added to their gaming experience.
I'm sure the same could happen with the neorealms, but my whole point is there was no reason to change things so drastically. Killing Mystra was not the be all end all. It was arbitrary cascading effects that were unnecessary.
As far as Waterdeep goes, it says in the campaign guide, the Harbour has been rendered ineffective and the sunken ships are now the new area for the poor. No direct quote just summing it up. I wrote about this change more on candlekeep years ago when it was fresher in my meomory. The books are currently in a box with my other first year 4e releases awaiting a new home that hopefully is not a landfill. There are numerous changes like that and at this point I cannot remember what they are. One however was the destruction of Never winter and everything north. I suppose they felt fit to bring Neverwinter back. I don't know. The only bit of stuff I read about 4e is some Dark Sun now, and the write up to to play the avenger.
This is one area where your rhetoric is somewhat problematic. It wasn't a division between "Realms fans" and "most people". Some fans of the Realms felt that changes were needed. Some did not. I suspect many would have agreed with much of the reasoning but not with the actual results.
Making it into "us" vs "them"... "true fans" vs "other guys"... is the sort of thing that the edition wars are built around.
I am sure people will be able to conduct themselves properly despite that. If someone wants to edition war over that, it is on them. I see nothing in my original thoughts that needs to be changed. Perhaps I am not as sensitive to the needs of others as I should be.
You are welcome to think the changes were better. I am not offended by it.
Doesn't she die every single edition change anyway?
My personal feelings are that the single biggest failing of the realms change was to just have it... happen.
If they had made it an event - something that PCs could take part in, influence, and actually witness happening... that would have been a lot more palatable, I think. Many would have still disliked it, of course! But it would have felt more natural.
Instead, they opted for a 'clean cut' - make the change, fast forward 100 years, and only later fill in what actually happened with many of these gods. Which was, in my opinion, a bad call.
I like the flavor of the new realms; I liked the flavor of the old. I felt some things were lost which were unfortunate (Finder!) - but many of the other changes had good reasons behind them.
But having it all bypass the players entirely was, I think, where it really went wrong.
On this we can agree
Yeah, this is a reasonable portrayal of the complaints about the Realms, and in no way designed to mock those who you disagree with.
Seriously, you don't want to be thought up as a troll? Maybe try not to constantly belittle those you disagree with, ok?
One is allowed to use sarcasm when delivering their opinions.
I belittle no one. Please cease the lectures, they are not wanted or needed.
And maybe understand that, even if you never had these problems, others did. It wasn't 'jargon on the internet' - it was their actual experiences, and dismissing those out of hand doesn't help convince anyone except those already on your side.
I am delivering my opinion, not writing a persuasive piece. If I was writing a persuasive piece I would have constructed the passage differently. I am well trained in writing and communication. My job depends on it.
Except, you know, for all those prior edition fans who think 4E is the true inheritor of the spirit of D&D.
I would expect as much. But if someone asks ME what the true inheritor is, I am going to answer Pathfinder and Golarion.
Ugh. Look, again, you can speak for yourself - say that you feel PF is the true successor. I'm sure most PF players feel that way. But don't say that they are the only gamers that matter - don't imply that 4E fans didn't also play the game in the past, or that the opinions of 4E fans don't count. Every time you do that, you are just further fueling the edition wars, and given your constant claims of innocent, you don't even realize you are doing it.
I will in fact speak for myself like I always do. I am at liberty to say exactly what I want. That is what I did in the above post. If I am giving an opinion I am not going to walk on eggshells. I expect people to recognize opinion when they read it. I do not expect them to share it.
|
|
Good points
I can see your point offer it for free and hope it increases interest enough to get buy it. Long term I do not think they can sustain that. If for some reason i needed to sell my rpgs for cash in an emergeny situation al li would need to do is get the core PDf for 10$ and use the SRD. With the SRD I would have no reason to dish out the same amount of money as before. I would have gone with a more restrained open content format. Enough fre material to get people interested. Yet not enough so that those interested would buy more. The devs of Eclipse Phase created their own torrent of the core book so that pople would get interested in the rpg. But it's only the core book not the rest of the line. Goodwill within the community is great ot's ot going to pay the bills or slaries of your empployees.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Matthew,
I get that you like 4th edition. However, you do not get what my complaint is. I am not saying you can't play only character interaction in 4th edition. I am sure you could do that whatever system you choose to use. It's just that 4th edition doesn't help you do it at all. I am sure they have tacked on new ideas more recently, but that doesn't much change things when someone already stopped playing. You say utility powers, so I have to ask you in what way teleporting three squares helps you with playing your role. You say rituals, okay, identify is not exactly combat. I give you that. I think you get my point even so. Skill challenges are about the clunkiest and weirdest mechanism I ever saw for screwing up interaction between characters.
My main gripe is not something provable, despite what you may think, Matthew. As such, it is surprising that you feel it has been "thoroughly debunked". The worst part of it is that when I play it, I get the same feeling of mediocrity that I get when I failed my "detect money-grabbing and pointless movie" check, and realize that someone made the movie I am just watching just to make money. Apparently it's not just me either. After I quit 4th, others in my group made a few more attempts at it before they too gave up, for the same reasons.
So, am I saying you should stop playing it? Absolutely not. I am writing this to tell you why I personally do not like it. People have different mileages.
One thing I will say to posters in this thread if your going to write whatever you want insulting or otherwise and then hide behind free speech you kind of lose the right to not be called out on it or to be offended that your called out on it. Sorry but yoou cannot have it both ways.
Is someone is being insulting, please flag them. Calling people out only escalates tension.
Thought I'd post some of the things that bug my group about 4th here, since a few times now I've mentioned we have issues, just not the ones most people are complaining about. Seems rude to mention that and defend the game to those complaints and not offer up the same opportunity for others.
Now here is the kind of thing I'd actually like to talk about. Especially interesting since it often seems what goes on in the 4E threads is arguing about points that few if any users of 4E actually do have issues with.
Feel free to offer suggestions on how you would tackle these things in your 4th edition game or why you may not think they're issues. Note that our group doesn't have anything from essentials though. We liked the game as it came out all the way up to PHB 3 then stopped buying rules since we reckon we have more than enough stuff to run with.1) I agree that the disconnect between certain NPC types and the characters can be jarring at times. My players are good about it, but we all know that it destroys our verisimitude a little when the human wizard attacking the party pulls out something that the wizard in our party will never attain. It's something all of us at my table are thinking about for either and explanation or house rule.
Well its worth noting that there really is not much in terms of precedence in fantasy media for either hero's or villains to behave identically. In fact the opposite is true - if you meet a baddie with a name they usually have unique abilities whether I'm watching LotR or an Xena episode or even reading a Conan novel.
One of the important things to note about this is its not just the DMs NPCs that are unique - so are your player characters. The five guys sitting around your table are literally the only people in the entire world that are built using the CB. In other words like Conan or Xena they two are unique named individuals with abilities that no one else really has (well unless the DM wants them too for whatever reason).
Still I can think of a couple of ways to handle Barbarians are all part of a single greater fraternity play style if that is really desired.
One would be the use of the class templates. Look in the back of the DMG1 and DMG2 and you'll see templates for most of the classes. This has not been done for PHB3 so far as I am aware...but all the templates work very similarly so it could be brewed by a DM that wanted an evil monk that was based on the CB monk. I believe that the reason there are no such templates for the PHB3 is actually because WotC is moving away from the very idea that anyone really shares abilities that are identical with anyone else. We see this in their recent monster books in particular note the dragons no longer are being presented as templates but as unique individuals that are dragons. In effect the black they had in Threats to Nintear Vale was presented as having some abilities we associate with such dragons but other abilities it possessed seemed to be more unique to this specific black dragon.
The other way of pulling this off goes off the reservation but its doable. Simply build the NPC in the Character Builder. Now you do face issues - you don't really know what such a character should have in terms of XP value for example.
The real issue however is encounter design. Character classes violate a number of 'good encounter design' principles. They are made out of healing (the NPCs should be designed to be able to access their surges) which is something monsters should not usually get because its boring as all get out for the baddie to be constantly 'undoing' the last good hit the players made. Further more it drags things out.
The second big issue is play balance. Character classes are not well balanced to handle a party. The most obvious issue is one surrounding access to their healing surges - unless the players come up against a balanced team (similar to what the characters themselves are) the challenge may well be far to easy as the NPC has trouble getting access to its Healing Surges - on the flip side if team enemy has a bunch of classes that grant it access to healing surges things can go out of whack that way pretty quickly. What happens is you bump up against the healing nova in 4E. A party that can access a huge percentage of its healing surges in a combat. Players won't do this very often because they drain themselves out after one encounter and must take a long rest but team enemy is only on the stage for this one encounter - they can drain themselves out as they don't need to fight again today. In effect the 'no healing for monsters' is being violated to the nth degree.
The final problem is to many powers. Characters have a lot of abilities - far more (especially in Paragon and beyond) then monsters and if the DM is to play teh role of team enemy its a really daunting task likely to take what is going to be a brutal slog to begin with and make it slower as the DM tries to run a whole enemy group effectively.
So bottom line - you can go down this path but its not supported in the game because your playing with fire. Using the class templates in the back of DMG1 and DMG2 works far better but is not completely free of such issues.
2) We used to hate that critters that threw weapons never had listed the number of daggers or javelins they had available. The assumption of course is that they have enough to last the battle. I was informed today that magical thrown items always return to the person who threw it. I don't like that much, but will hesitate to change it since I'm not sure of long term effects of limiting attacks by thrown ranged weapons (particularly if a class has a build option for this).
Most monsters do have their ammunition listed in the bottom of their entry under equipment. Are you sure your not just ignoring this rule like everyone else that plays 4E (because tracking ammunition is both trivial and friggen boring)?
3) Skill challenges are hard to run effectively. I'm getting pretty good at them now, or at least my players keep telling me that they are getting more exciting at least. It's taken me a fair bit of trial and error to get it right though. I think this could be addressed for folks at some stage. I know they did a series of articles on it and DMG2 had a section on it. It's still an artform though. Something I like having in the games, but spend more time on planning than any other asect of the game. Since time is a premium for me, this falls into the category of "could be better" for me at least.
Yeah - this is hard work. Note that there is no entry in any RPG that I am aware that covers 'how to role play when you encounter a Duke' or any other NPC. Its just assumed that you can do that no book explains how the acting is done except maybe to make some suggestions along the lines of 'tips to make your NPCs stand out' or that sort of thing.
Skill Challenges face the same sort of issue. Its super difficult to explain how to do them well in the same way as its supper difficult to explain how to make the bar wench really come to life at the game table. In both cases its something of a black box element no matter how core to the game it may really be. You learn by doing and sometimes by doing badly. In some ways Skill Challenges are a larger problem because the layout or formatting can trick one into thinking that you play it by following some kind of mechanical formula as opposed to having a mechanical formula behind the scenes.
As with role playing anything the best examples are watching people who are good at them doing it and practising with your group.
4)The lack of "soul" that came in the monster manuals. I only have the first 2, and people have already spoken with me about it on these boards, but I think a little more about creatures cultures, motivations and powersource would go a long way to inspring DM's more. I'm lucky enough to have many years behind me in DnD and other games systems so I can draw on a variety of info to give soul to the monsters I run, but others don't have that. This may have been addressed already in some of the essentials stuff though.
I really liked the 2nd edition Monster Manuals as well and in fact I agree with you here. Glad to hear you found a solution.
Is someone is being insulting, please flag them. Calling people out only escalates tension.
@#$%@#$ you, Byers. Bring it! ;-)
I can see your point offer it for free and hope it increases interest enough to get buy it. Long term I do not think they can sustain that. If for some reason i needed to sell my rpgs for cash in an emergeny situation al li would need to do is get the core PDf for 10$ and use the SRD. With the SRD I would have no reason to dish out the same amount of money as before. I would have gone with a more restrained open content format. Enough fre material to get people interested. Yet not enough so that those interested would buy more. The devs of Eclipse Phase created their own torrent of the core book so that pople would get interested in the rpg. But it's only the core book not the rest of the line. Goodwill within the community is great ot's ot going to pay the bills or slaries of your empployees.
Actually, for Eclipse Phase it is every book. They are that awesome. More people should support them by buying the books.
It certainly doesn't seem to be hurting Paizo's sales that there are rules on the web. The Core Rulebook is on its fourth printing. That is incredible. And they still make a profit on each of those sales.
I am not saying you can't play only character interaction in 4th edition. I am sure you could do that whatever system you choose to use. It's just that 4th edition doesn't help you do it at all. I am sure they have tacked on new ideas more recently, but that doesn't much change things when someone already stopped playing.
Disagree completely. In fact 4Es utility for playing outside of combat is one of the big things that attracts me to the system.
By and large the design choices they made in this regards really help with actually playing adventures where the swords mainly stay sheathed.
In particular the fact that the classes are balanced both in and out of combat by default means that all the classes get to participate during this adventure. The fighter has roughly the same access to skills that the rogue has. Their aptitudes vary but if they both have pretty close to the same number of skills by default and they are both about equally important out of combat (in it as well).
There are no 'face' classes. non-combat is not the bards cameo before we get back to the main theme of killing something. Its the whole groups bullywack.
More importantly the spell system does not tend to trump the out of combat elements of the game. There are some rituals etc. that might be important but by and large if your group wants to do something out of combat they use their skills or they talk with NPCs. You can't solve most out of combat issues through having the wizard intelligently pick spells the next day to solve the problem the adventure presents.
The skill system scales pretty well as well so it remains the basic way the characters handle out of combat elements from 1st through at least high Paragon. There us a gap problem but far less then was the case in 3rd so adventure design can handle the players using their skills to overcome the challenges presented and expect them to do so cooperatively so everyone gets to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Congratulations, we now have wholly conflicting samples. That leaves us where?"
I think it is same to assume those who like 4th like it a lot and those who dislike 4th dislike it a lot.
The arguments made either way are legitimate, but man I don't understand why so many are getting heated.
I was talking to one of my students the other week, I learned he plays 3.5, so I proceeded to tell him about pathfinder which in my opinion is the greatest thing since...well...3.5.
He told me that he hasn't really looked into any systems since he tried 4th and didn't like it. In his opinion, it was a lot like WoW.
My point in this is, the comparison might be unfair, the comparison could be plain wrong to others having their own perceptions of the game, but they are expressed opinions.
I compare my girlfriend to Cinderella, while I am sure her ex-hubby compares her to the Wicked Stepmother, comparisons are based on opinions and personal interpretation.
Chastising someone over their differing opinions just doesn't seem to get anywhere when either side can easily prove their own points.
"Congratulations, we now have wholly conflicting samples. That leaves us where?"
I think it is same to assume those who like 4th like it a lot and those who dislike 4th dislike it a lot.
The arguments made either way are legitimate, but man I don't understand why so many are getting heated.
I was talking to one of my students the other week, I learned he plays 3.5, so I proceeded to tell him about pathfinder which in my opinion is the greatest thing since...well...3.5.
He told me that he hasn't really looked into any systems since he tried 4th and didn't like it. In his opinion, it was a lot like WoW.
My point in this is, the comparison might be unfair, the comparison could be plain wrong to others having their own perceptions of the game, but they are expressed opinions.
I compare my girlfriend to Cinderella, while I am sure her ex-hubby compares her to the Wicked Stepmother, comparisons are based on opinions and personal interpretation.
Chastising someone over their differing opinions just doesn't seem to get anywhere when either side can easily prove their own points.
And you win the prize! understanding that people can have opinions without them being inflammatory is priceless!
Good job Man!
My point (and the point of others) is there is a strong difference between Mournblade's expressions of "this is my opinion, and my view based on my experience. It's expressed clearly and if you can remain somewhat polite then we can discuss it if you'd like, but there it is, whether you agree or not."
and
"Your game is a hopeless videogame knock-off money grab pounded out by idiot coprorate hacks for even stupider players whose roleplaying skills rival that of three year olds desperately trying to grasp the basic concepts behind playing chutes and ladders. By the way you're welcome to be one of those players if you want, that's really cool with me, and I will continue to snicker and deride you, but you know, whatever, man."
One is polite discourse, and while I disagree with many of mournblades assertions and think they are ill-informed in some cases, and have some mildly insulting undertones in others, (and I'm sure he genuinely means them in a well intentioned manner, they just have some implications if you follow the thought further that are far from flattering) I could very well easily discuss them with him at length if I so chose. Huzzah.
The other is in every way flamebait with a disingenuous demi-appology tacked on.
I thank you for your post.
|
|
Thanks to Redjack and Jeremy for your insight guys. They were both really well thought out responses and have given me plenty to think about.
I suspect that some of those issues will go away for us as we get our mindset more in tune with the game. We play fortnightly for about 3 hours a session with very little time in between to devote to the game, so I suspect part of it is just lack of experience with the system. Certainly what Redjack stated about the powers and how they can be explained through feat choices etc shows a deeper understanding of the game mechanics than we probably have.
I'm going to read both those posts in more detail when I don't have my kids jumping all over me and try to organize my thoughts around them for our next session. I'll direct my players to have a read over them both as well. They were quite good.
Cheers
3rd edition took the stuff from Diablo that they felt would improve the game, and reshaped them to fit the activity of D&D. This was done sensibly, in a limited way, and mindful of the price of such incorporation. Sure, you could claim that there is more than that, but you'd have to ignore a very clear statement in the fact that they DID make Diablo D&D - a product that had very different philosophies in it compared to 3rd edition.
Actually I found Diablo no where close to how 3E played....by any scope what-so-ever. In Diablo, anyone could use magic with very little cost. In Diablo, it was repetitive slash...move, slash...move, slash..hack...slash...move.... None of which I found in v3.5 except maybe the Fighter. And he was given Combat Maneuvers and feat in an attempt to make this simulation better. So, for me, comparisons to video games and TT-RPGs just isn't a very good explaination for game mechanics. There are similarities, sure, but whole-sale cross overs for any D&D RPG is a bit of a stretch (save for monster's role in 4E).
By contrast, when they made 4th edition, they did not reshape the material for the activity of D&D. Instead they put it in more or less wholesale, and pushed a philosophy that the activity of D&D was now something DIFFERENT from what it had been (compare to the comments about 3rd edition on the launch of 4dventure...) The focus was on combat, since every power in the game now had exclusively (or almost exclusively) combat applications. Beyond that, roleplaying was given almost no system functions. Setting exploration was scuppered through the points of light assumed setting, and the very clear message of the nuking of the Forgotten Realms setting (so as not to have lots of backstory in a setting, because backstory is a bad thing...)
I bolded what struck me as the most important part of your opinion. See, I'm of the belief that roleplaying requires NO system functions. Sorry, don't feel the need to have a game tell me how to roleplay my character. Class "roles" in 4E, as defined by combat, are OK as it helps me decide how to best use my character's abilities for party dynamics. But that's about as far as it goes. Can you give me a description of 3rd Edition roleplaying system functions?
I'll grant you that Crafting was left by the way-side with 4E, and for good reason as it was a faucet with limited scope and use with my group and apparently from others as well. But Craft can still easily be done in 4E; let me show you...
A 9th level Fighter is in town for a good two-weeks. He wants to fashion himself a new set of full-plate. The one he's currently wearing is dull, beaten, and loose in various places. So he talks to the blacksmith on how to set up making a new suit. Given the fact that he has a good 8 to 10 days of down-time, he sets out to get the best quality items at an affordable price. The town helps him in costs because he just helped save them from a great threat. So, by using the DMG we figure out what the DC's are going to be for this challenge.
Because he has a good pool of resources, the blacksmith aiding when he can, and time we'll set the DC at Low (or 15). The check involves half his level (+4) plus his Intelligence modifier (+0). When the blacksmith helps, he'll receive a +2 bonus. So this is done by 3 checks during the week and it'll cost the Fighter 1/4 the amount of normal Plate-Armor, which is 50 gp. He has to make 2 out of 3 checks but note that the Blacksmith can only help him once as he's a very busy man himself. If he succeeds on his checks, he gets new full-plate costing him 12 gp. If he fails, well he'll lose 12 gp and have to start over.
Meantime, a 9th level Warlord across the world is in a bit of a hurry and his Chainmail is riddled with kinks and holes. He has to fashion one in 3 days time. This would be a Moderate DC (21) but he only makes two checks. Again it's half his level (4) plus his Intelligence modifier (+2) for a total of +6. His hurried state doesn't allow him to make a good bond with the blacksmith and so he has to pay 1/2 the cost of normal Chainmail (20 GP). Both checks must be successful for him to make the chain in a short time.
Finally you have a resistance fighter (9th level again) defending a town during it's invasion. A morning skirmish has left him without any armor at all and he's forced to make one from a portable forge at the refugee campsite. He needs it NOW and has to hammer one out in a day. This would be a difficult DC (26) again with his modifiers being half his level plus his Intelligence modifier. Though a full-time smith is there and helps him with Aid action nad possibly he could add a benefit because a set of tools are really amazing.... It's a one roll chance in which he has to pay 3/4 the price of a suit of full-plate (37 GP) in materials.
ALL of these have great roleplay opportuinities and NONE require the PC to have advanced ranks in Craft (blah) to be successful.
What 4th edition did, then, was simplify the activity of tabletop gaming beyond the point where it would have been a good idea. And the simplification was not in what rules there was, but for all those other things you could want your character to do beyond fighting the next group of thunderscreamer air elementals (tm), dirgehowler air elementals (tm) and icewindbreather air elementals (tm). And to compensate for the added efficiency of fighting, stuff got more hp instead so combat still takes just as much time.
Sorry but I just can't invision what rules your referring to (besides Craft) that influences 3E more than 4E. Spell durations were halved for good reason. Fly for hours, day-long buff spells, contigent spells were all aspects that "broke" the game in previous editions or excluded everybody but full-fledged spellcasters at least. It's along the lines of Wizards are cool and fighters/melee-guy should get squat because they're mindless brutes with simplistic class designs. ie. they can't have nice things.
Maybe you could elaborate on what parts 3E rules did well that enforced or embraced character roleplaying so that others might be able to add that element into their 4E games.
Not being able to ever use the powers that enemies from the playable races constantly come up with and use against the PC's begins to broach the reasonable bounds of "Why not?".
"They're not exactly going to teach you if you're killing them."
Really though, I've never seen this come up. It's almost the height of metagaming and would tell me that my players most certainly do not have their head in the game at all. There's little that would break the wall for me more then players positively leaping out of character to whine about how they want some sort of mechanics that an enemy has.
Because at the end of the day it's just that - a mechanic. The fighter might not be able to replicate the close burst 3 vs reflex that knocks people prone that the enemy has, but he can replicate swinging his weapon in an arc to trip people around him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3rd edition took the stuff from Diablo that they felt would improve the game, and reshaped them to fit the activity of D&D. This was done sensibly, in a limited way, and mindful of the price of such incorporation. Sure, you could claim that there is more than that, but you'd have to ignore a very clear statement in the fact that they DID make Diablo D&D - a product that had very different philosophies in it compared to 3rd edition.
Look what else they made!
By contrast, when they made 4th edition, they did not reshape the material for the activity of D&D.
Yes, they did.
Instead they put it in more or less wholesale,
No, they didn't.
You pick a mechanic, and then I'll show you how they changed it for D&D. But I'm not going to sit here and let you make up stuff like this.
and pushed a philosophy that the activity of D&D was now something DIFFERENT from what it had been (compare to the comments about 3rd edition on the launch of 4dventure...)
The focus of D&D has been the same, from its very first release right through 2011: adventure.
The focus was on combat, since every power in the game now had exclusively (or almost exclusively) combat applications.
Consider that perhaps this doesn't demonstrate that D&D is about combat, but instead that powers are largely designed for combat.
But yes, the focus of the rules is combat. That's how it should be. Combat is well-served by rules for two reasons: 1) combat is a source of conflict, and conflict requires resolution, and rules provide an easily-understood way of reaching a resolution; 2) combat lends itself to mechanical implementation, whereas something like a diplomatic negotiation might lend itself far less (and be ill-served by such an implementation).
Beyond that, roleplaying was given almost no system functions.
That's bullcrap. Skill challenges were specifically put together to provide a rules framework for extended non-combat (including roleplaying) encounters. They're awesome, as long as you aren't terrible at running skill challenges.
You know where roleplaying was given almost no system functions? D&D 3.5. Being able to roll a d20 to determine how much money you make spending a month basketweaving is not roleplaying, is not compelling or engaging, and is not aligned with the overarching theme of adventure.
4e was deliberately designed to provide the mechanical support for non-combat encounters that was missing from 3.5.
Setting exploration was scuppered through the points of light assumed setting,
Points of Light is entirely about setting exploration; to believe otherwise is to have totally missed the point.
Civilization is reduced to points of light spread throughout the land - shelter against an ever-encroaching darkness. The heroes are some of the only people capable of pushing back against the darkness and reclaiming some of what was lost. The whole point of the setting is that it provides a built-in way to introduce things like lost empires, hidden treasure troves, and secret lairs.
and the very clear message of the nuking of the Forgotten Realms setting (so as not to have lots of backstory in a setting, because backstory is a bad thing...)
The reason for "nuking" the Forgotten Realms was to address a number of concerns:
1) The world was saturated with very powerful NPCs, most of whom are far better suited to shaping the world and dealing with threats to the Realms than the PCs.
2) Backstory isn't a bad thing. Having so much relevant backstory that no DM can possibly keep track of it all? That's a bad thing. Pile on top of that the all-too-common problem of having a player more familiar with the setting than the DM, and you have a recipe for a shattering of immersion.
3) It provided a plausible, in-world explanation for some of the changes to the function of magic.
I suspect the process was something like it usually is. A company needs a new product, a big one. They make a few bullet points on what they want from it, and make an alpha version based on these design points. Then this version is battered through various focus groups, whose main function is to see that nobody is, or could be, offended by the product. As a consequence, everything that stands out, or otherwise could evoke an emotional response is filtered out quietly. At best, this becomes a lacklustre mass of product-shaped object, whether it's movies, or, I think, games.
This sounds like the sort of logic that one might use if one were utterly unfamiliar with how WotC works on D&D, and was also not paying attention.
Then comes the fun part, in the final processing. The bean-counters decide that the product needs to generate money running, so they tie it to a prenumeration model (look how much money WoW is making, we need something like that too!). Cue the digital initiative.
The digital initiative came about because it was about damn time tabletop gaming caught up with the year 1995.
Oh well, at least we got a magnificent 3D-tabletop computer environment, right? =) Then legal gets final pass on the product, and decide that everything will be better for the company if everything is trademarkable, hence the bladerager trolls and similar drek, that was pointed out to me that it began before 4th edition and was no better then than it was later.
Please stop with the "trademark" nonsense. That's not how trademark works, that's not why they use the naming structure they use, and you're making yourself look silly by continuing to claim otherwise.
I know what you're trying to do: you believe WotC is a faceless corporate bureaucracy, and therefore every decision they make must be squeezed into that mental model you've constructed. You're going to be disappointed, though, because that's simply not how it works.
My suspicion is that Wizards of the Coast when they made 3rd edition was a very different beast than Wizards of the Coast under Hasbro when they made 4th edition, and we see the consequences clearly in the products.
LOL.
Hasbro bought Wizards of the Coast in 1999. Before 3rd Edition was even released.
Please, stop this. You don't know what you're talking about, you're making stuff up, and it's not doing you any favors.
That's not to say you can't play 4th edition and have fun with it. You can probably play F.A.T.A.L. and have fun with it, if you just fix the system up a little and ignore various stupid parts. I did play 4th for a while, and I liked my character. We fought through a few of the early adventures. Some had various good points, I liked some maps, for example, but it was all combat.
I'm afraid that the degree to which you mix combat, exploration, roleplaying, and other types of gameplay in your roleplaying game of choice is entirely a function of what you and the DM decide to do. Blaming the game system? Lame.
I tried some roleplaying, to interact with the world around my character, but the setting was sadly points of light which gave a very limited scope, no societies to consider beyond the starting keep, and so on.
If you need a Realms-like assortment of civilizations and kingdoms in order to play your character in a compelling manner, you have no room to criticize a game system for having lackluster roleplaying. They problem is with you, not the system.
Eventually you just give in and fight instead. So we did that. And we found that every combat takes a good long while, simply because the monsters have the aforementioned oodles of hit points.
Combat in 4e takes a comparable amount of time to combat in 3.5/Pathfinder. Possibly less. So it would be cool if you were playing, say, BECMI and were offering up this complaint, but since you probably count Pathfinder as your game of choice it just ends up looking petty and hypocritical. "Man, Seattle's Best sucks because I hate coffee. Now, who wants Starbucks?"
What 4th edition did, then, was simplify the activity of tabletop gaming beyond the point where it would have been a good idea.
You don't understand 4th Edition. Plainly. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. You've made that very clear in your last few posts.
And the simplification was not in what rules there was, but for all those other things you could want your character to do beyond fighting the next group of thunderscreamer air elementals (tm), dirgehowler air elementals (tm) and icewindbreather air elementals (tm).
Dear lord please stop.
4th edition taking cues from WoW is not in itself a bad thing. It's just that out-WoW-ing WoW with a tabletop RPG has always been a stupid idea.
You didn't even talk about anything from WoW in this entire post! You started out saying "I'm going to explain why 4e taking cues from WoW is bad!" and then didn't even mention WoW again until the very last sentence! The mind boggles.
I mean more realistically I can see this happening like this
DM: The evil barbarian hacks into your armor with his cleaver, sending you reeling!
Player: Well screw that I'm a hit him the same way! It sounds like [barbarian power that I have]. I hack into his g$#**$n armor!
|
|
I mean more realistically I can see this happening like this
DM: The evil barbarian hacks into your armor with his cleaver, sending you reeling!
Player: Well screw that I'm a hit him the same way! It sounds like [barbarian power that I have]. I hack into his g#*!!*n armor!
Thanks Cirno, those were much better responses. I actually suspect you're right in a way. Part of it is likely our mindset more than anything. I definitely explain the action of a combat in terms of descriptive flavour, but I also need to drop mechanical consequences on the players as well. That alone can break concentration and in the moment game play at times.
It's a fair point though. As Redjack pointed out earlier, part of it is just us not knowing all the abilities and feats etc well enough to be able to extrapolate that. We'll get through it I'm sure, and I truly appreciate the feedback this time.
Cheers
The reason for "nuking" the Forgotten Realms was to address a number of concerns:
1) The world was saturated with very powerful NPCs, most of whom are far better suited to shaping the world and dealing with threats to the Realms than the PCs.
Easily explained. They don't have the time, they are involved in other things, they know they are not immortal, they are mentors,involved in cosmology, involved in curtailing the villains and organizations, etc. There REALLY are numerous reasons. The same way, Daredevil can operate in the marvel universe.
2) Backstory isn't a bad thing. Having so much relevant backstory that no DM can possibly keep track of it all? That's a bad thing. Pile on top of that the all-too-common problem of having a player more familiar with the setting than the DM, and you have a recipe for a shattering of immersion.
YOU make the setting. Not the publisher. Tell the player he is out of line, it is your realms. Or just read more. There were numerous solutions. The one they chose was very very clumsy, and I think unwarranted.
3) It provided a plausible, in-world explanation for some of the changes to the function of magic.
And that was ultimately the reason they did it.