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.
You understand that there is a fundamental difference between comic book authors inventing new ways for their character to be relevant, and PCs scratching their heads over why the Chosen (or one of like five other Realms supergroups) leave the fate of the world in the hands of heroes with maybe a 50/50 chance of success when they could just take a half hour out of their own busy schedule and solve the whole damn thing with complete confidence, right?
YOU make the setting. Not the publisher. Tell the player he is out of line, it is your realms.
The point of having a long-standing, popular setting is that you can actually play in it. It is fundamentally unsatisfying for a player to enter a game with the expectation that he will be experiencing the Realms he has been following and then discover mid-game that he's actually in the DM's personal butchered version of it.
Or just read more.
No amount of reading guards against this.
There were numerous solutions. The one they chose was very very clumsy, and I think unwarranted.
That's not for me to say one way or another. But Sissyl claimed the reason for "nuking" the Realms was because they believe backstory is a bad thing, and that's simply not the case. To reduce such a monumental decision to so naive an explanation is disingenuous.
And that was ultimately the reason they did it.
If that were the only thing they cared about, they could have dealt with it in any number of other, less dramatic ways (or even left it alone and hand-waved the whole thing).
Just because you didn't see the problems I pointed out doesn't mean they didn't exist. They did, and those complaints arose constantly. The designers heard those complaints and came up with a way to address them.
|
Actually, for Eclipse Phase it is every book. They are that awesome. More people should support them by buying the books.
Really. I was under the impression it was only the core book. Will look into that as EP is one of my favorite rpgs.
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.
Short term sales no. Long term I think yes. Paying for material vs free imo free wins all the time. Still I hope Im wrong as Paizo deserves to make a profit at all times.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, isn't this nice. I have not once been uncivil in this discussion. I have been clear that what I wrote was MY opinions. And yet, I have been called lots of things here, none of them pretty. Apparently, it is okay to criticize 4th edition AS LONG AS you do not try to explain WHY you don't like it, because when I tried that, I was held to massive standards: Previous posts I made did not even exist, everything that could even remotely bemisconstrued was, I was called out on providing PROOF for every tiny part of a sentence. And so on.
But fine. Even saying that it's my opinion and that others' mileages vary wasn't enough. It was still apparently an attack, inflammatory and downright evil. So I can honesty say that I understand why you guys get crude remarks about your beloved game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, isn't this nice.
Instead of actually addressing criticism of your argument, you have decided to call it "not nice". Next time, maybe address that criticism. If your arguments have merit, you will be capable of doing so.
I have not once been uncivil in this discussion.
Neither has anyone been uncivil with you. We have not called you names, made personal attacks, or otherwise attacked you (though we certainly - and rightly - have attacked your arguments and position).
I have been clear that what I wrote was MY opinions.
Disclaiming your words as opinion does not save them from criticism. If you choose to share your opinion with the internet, the internet will often choose to share its opinion of your opinion with you.
And yet, I have been called lots of things here, none of them pretty.
While you certainly haven't been showered with praise, neither have you been unfairly denigrated. You decided to post some untrue things about something you were unfamiliar with, and you were accordingly treated to people taking you to task for it. Next time, don't post untrue things. It's not exactly an overwhelming responsibility.
Apparently, it is okay to criticize 4th edition AS LONG AS you do not try to explain WHY you don't like it,
You are allowed to criticize 4th Edition. I certainly can't stop you. But if you say things about 4th Edition that are demonstrably untrue, you will be taken to task for it. This is easy to avoid. Don't criticize something you have no real grasp of, and you won't run into any trouble.
because when I tried that, I was held to massive standards: Previous posts I made did not even exist, everything that could even remotely bemisconstrued was, I was called out on providing PROOF for every tiny part of a sentence. And so on.
We're not holding you to the standards you think we're holding you to. You have a responsibility to post things which are true, and to not post things which are false, or which you have no understanding of (and are thus making guesses in the guise of fact).
But fine. Even saying that it's my opinion and that others' mileages vary wasn't enough.
Except you were not posting opinions.
"By contrast, when they made 4th edition, they did not reshape the material for the activity of D&D," is not an opinion. It is an attempt to state a fact. A fact which is untrue.
"Instead they put it in more or less wholesale," is not an opinion. It is an attempt to state a fact. A fact which is untrue.
"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...)" is not an opinion. It is an attempt to state a fact. A fact which is untrue.
"Beyond that, roleplaying was given almost no system functions," is not an opinion. It is an attempt to state a fact. A fact which is untrue.
"Setting exploration was scuppered through the points of light assumed setting," is not an opinion. It is an attempt to state a fact. A fact which is untrue.
"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," is not an opinion. It is an attempt to state a fact. A fact which is untrue.
I could keep going, but I don't need to.
Saying "This is my opinion!" doesn't excuse your actions, especially since you spent the vast majority of your time here not posting opinions but rather trying to convey falsehoods in the guise of facts.
You don't like the response you're receiving? Good.
It was still apparently an attack, inflammatory and downright evil. So I can honesty say that I understand why you guys get crude remarks about your beloved game.
Ah, yes, we take you to task for spreading falsehoods, and you turn it around and say "This is why people hate your game!"
Because THAT makes sense.
I've got news for you, Sissyl.
This is why the violently anti-4e crowd has such a negative reputation in the community. They show up, drop their half-baked anti-4e diarrhea all over a thread, and when they're called out on it they hide behind the laughable protection of "Hey, that's just, like, my opinion, man."
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.
Yeah.
More often that not in my games, my players seem to regard enemy ability's similar to their own powers even though they might not be able to get that exact same power. They see the enemy ability as a nice trick, but no more special than many of the random powers that they have selected.
I might attribute to them not worrying about not being learn those specific powers to feeling like those monster's abilities are stuff that the player would completely expect to be somewhere on their list of options for powers.
If the party is fighting a Fighter, his powers are likely going to feel like fighter powers. If they fight a wizard, they should be able to tell that they fought a wizard after the battle is over. With the current wide array of options, as long as the power feels like it is on the classes power list, I believe that my party would believe that they are probably able to learn that power (or a variation of it) and not worry terribly about any differences between their ability and what they saw in one battle from an enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Short term sales no. Long term I think yes. Paying for material vs free imo free wins all the time. Still I hope Im wrong as Paizo deserves to make a profit at all times.
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.
At first I was going to let this go. But the more I think about it, the more it bothers me.
The d20 rules have been available for free online for over a decade. This has never seemed to slow the purchase of core books. Pathfinder has been out for over two years, and the Core Rulebook is still a strong seller. I'm not certain how much more proof you need that the strategy works long term. I'm fairly certain Paizo has sold more books in the first year than they projected to sell in a decade. The strategy works.
|
They are calling them these names because, as you get multiple versions of the same basic creature (troll) you want to be able to tell them apart. "Bladerager" has more flavour than, say, troll type 3. It's really that simple. They already own the IP through copyright of the books - so trademarking the names (and by the way, a trademark has "TM" written after it, which none of these monster names do) really makes no difference. You maybe need to explain what advantage WotC would gain from trademarking names like these, assuming they would even be granted. And maybe consider whether the cost of registering and policing thousands of individual trademarks would be an adequate trade-off. Especially when you consider that the basic term "troll" isn't IP anyway. I'm not a lawyer and even I can see this doesn't really hold water. You undermine your credibility with this stuff, which in any case has absolutely no bearing on whether you (or anyone else) enjoyed playing 4e.
But that is the point, Aubrey. The basic term troll isn't IP, but "bladerager troll" is just fine. That is the idea behind it. And yes, these names do have bearing on whether I enjoy playing 4th. So, I will just have to look through the MM and see whether there are any IP symbols before getting back to you guys.
Well, isn't this nice. I have not once been uncivil in this discussion. I have been clear that what I wrote was MY opinions. And yet, I have been called lots of things here, none of them pretty. Apparently, it is okay to criticize 4th edition AS LONG AS you do not try to explain WHY you don't like it, because when I tried that, I was held to massive standards: Previous posts I made did not even exist, everything that could even remotely bemisconstrued was, I was called out on providing PROOF for every tiny part of a sentence. And so on.
But fine. Even saying that it's my opinion and that others' mileages vary wasn't enough. It was still apparently an attack, inflammatory and downright evil. So I can honesty say that I understand why you guys get crude remarks about your beloved game.
Hey, if I've learned anything around here in the last couple of days, it's that honestly trying to express your opinion is the most bitter and sarcastic way to express it of all! In disguise!
Hey, if I've learned anything around here in the last couple of days, it's that honestly trying to express your opinion is the most bitter and sarcastic way to express it of all! In disguise!Well, isn't this nice. I have not once been uncivil in this discussion. I have been clear that what I wrote was MY opinions. And yet, I have been called lots of things here, none of them pretty. Apparently, it is okay to criticize 4th edition AS LONG AS you do not try to explain WHY you don't like it, because when I tried that, I was held to massive standards: Previous posts I made did not even exist, everything that could even remotely bemisconstrued was, I was called out on providing PROOF for every tiny part of a sentence. And so on.
But fine. Even saying that it's my opinion and that others' mileages vary wasn't enough. It was still apparently an attack, inflammatory and downright evil. So I can honesty say that I understand why you guys get crude remarks about your beloved game.
Indeed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are calling them these names because, as you get multiple versions of the same basic creature (troll) you want to be able to tell them apart. "Bladerager" has more flavour than, say, troll type 3. It's really that simple. They already own the IP through copyright of the books - so trademarking the names (and by the way, a trademark has "TM" written after it, which none of these monster names do) really makes no difference. You maybe need to explain what advantage WotC would gain from trademarking names like these, assuming they would even be granted. And maybe consider whether the cost of registering and policing thousands of individual trademarks would be an adequate trade-off. Especially when you consider that the basic term "troll" isn't IP anyway. I'm not a lawyer and even I can see this doesn't really hold water. You undermine your credibility with this stuff, which in any case has absolutely no bearing on whether you (or anyone else) enjoyed playing 4e.
Actually, there's something in the fantasy biz called a "noun-verber", used to refer to an uncreative mash of words that sounds cool. Usually it's a person's name, like Kurin Darkslayer, or Mydys Angelpuncher. It sounds really silly and rarely has any baring on anything. SOME MMOs (And MUDs) use this naming convention. I can't think of anything else that does aside from terribad fantasy novels.
The names are all noun-verber names. They sound silly. Those that aren't a mash of a noun and a verb are usually something like an adjective or two on the front that don't seem to relate to anything.
At least, that was my experience. Maybe they hired a writer since I read through the MM.
|
|
They are calling them these names because, as you get multiple versions of the same basic creature (troll) you want to be able to tell them apart. "Bladerager" has more flavour than, say, troll type 3. It's really that simple. They already own the IP through copyright of the books - so trademarking the names (and by the way, a trademark has "TM" written after it, which none of these monster names do) really makes no difference. You maybe need to explain what advantage WotC would gain from trademarking names like these, assuming they would even be granted. And maybe consider whether the cost of registering and policing thousands of individual trademarks would be an adequate trade-off. Especially when you consider that the basic term "troll" isn't IP anyway. I'm not a lawyer and even I can see this doesn't really hold water. You undermine your credibility with this stuff, which in any case has absolutely no bearing on whether you (or anyone else) enjoyed playing 4e.Actually, there's something in the fantasy biz called a "noun-verber", used to refer to an uncreative mash of words that sounds cool. Usually it's a person's name, like Kurin Darkslayer, or Mydys Angelpuncher. It sounds really silly and rarely has any baring on anything. SOME MMOs (And MUDs) use this naming convention. I can't think of anything else that does aside from terribad fantasy novels.
The names are all noun-verber names. They sound silly. Those that aren't a mash of a noun and a verb are usually something like an adjective or two on the front that don't seem to relate to anything.
At least, that was my experience. Maybe they hired a writer since I read through the MM.
Maybe. I didn't say they were good names, I was addressing the issue of trademarking. The fact they didn't try too hard with the names is also somewhat suggestive that they never had (or have) plans to trademark them.
|
|
But that is the point, Aubrey. The basic term troll isn't IP, but "bladerager troll" is just fine. That is the idea behind it. And yes, these names do have bearing on whether I enjoy playing 4th. So, I will just have to look through the MM and see whether there are any IP symbols before getting back to you guys.
There are compliance costs with trademarking stuff, so you need to show how the cost of trademarking everything in the MM1, 2 and 3 (and the MVs too) is worth it, when the cost of violation by using the name is probably trivial. What they don't want you to do is use the mechanics anywhere else, selling you "Raging Blade Troll" and copying their bladerager, but that is covered by copyright anyway (as it always was in previous editions, and is the case with every other company out there). I think you have bought into this trademarking stuff without thinking it through.
As for the names, that I can understand. It's not a problem for me, and some of the monster concepts are cool. And they have to call them something. In the end, if your DM is saying "Here comes the bladerager troll!" instead of "You see a green-skinned, warty giant, with huge fangs and tusks. Cruelly grafted in place of hands you can see long blades, dripping with its own blood from the raw surgical wounds. Maddened by pain and bloodlust, it attacks!" that might be a DM'ing issue. Sure, we all have good days and bad days as DMs, but if that's the issue I'm not sure what saying, "You see a bunch of goblins" has over "You see three goblin cutters, a goblin blackblade and a hexer." They're both lacking in flavour.
|
|
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...
No offense but I think you are wrong.
Wholesale makes virtually no difference at all. There is a warehouse and contracts with shipping companies. This isn't Walmart. The large scale re-distributor for Amazon sucks eggs, but otherwise most of the business is direct shipments to customers or FLGS. It isn't like their are Paizo trucks taking books around the country. There is a warehouse and contracts with shipping companies. This isn't Walmart.
Distribution is mitigated by the fact that a large portion of the business is direct order with shipping added.
An although there is an economy of scale, a large part of the cost per book is shipping from China.
This has been discussed by Paizo staff on other threads when people have complained about the cost of the rule books and staff have basically said the margin is fairly low on those books. Meanwhile the margin is fairly high on the AP, Module, and Campaign setting line because paperback is much cheaper than hardcover.
The margin is the thing that matters.
If they sell 100,000 core rulebooks, at 60 bucks, and the cost to make them, receive them, catalog an warehouse them, etc...is 50 dollars, they make 1,000,000 profit. Nice.
But they will also have to have 5,000,000 in upfront investment to have the books made. And that is assuming they sell every book they make. To break even they need to sell 5 out of ever 6 made. They need to sell about 84,000 of the 100,000 copies to break even.
Now lets say they sell 10,000 of each module of an AP for 20 bucks, and they cost 5 dollars to make.
The initial cost (risk) is 50,000 dollars. But at a much higher profit margin if they sell 1/4 of the books they get back to the black.
All this before PDF sales, and with the AP line a lot more reliable since it depends largely on reliable subscribers.
Each rulebook is a deep front line capital investment that could blow up in their faces if they don't guess the sales correctly. APs are much, much safer bets with less upfront capital and a much bigger margin.
|
|
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...
No offense but I think you are wrong.
Wholesale makes virtually no difference at all. There is a warehouse and contracts with shipping companies. This isn't Walmart. The large scale re-distributor for Amazon sucks eggs, but otherwise most of the business is direct shipments to customers or FLGS. It isn't like their are Paizo trucks taking books around the country. There is a warehouse and contracts with shipping companies. This isn't Walmart.
Distribution is mitigated by the fact that a large portion of the business is direct order with shipping added.
An although there is an economy of scale, a large part of the cost per book is shipping from China.
This has been discussed by Paizo staff on other threads when people have complained about the cost of the rule books and staff have basically said the margin is fairly low on those books. Meanwhile the margin is fairly high on the AP, Module, and Campaign setting line because paperback is much cheaper than hardcover.
The margin the thing that matters.
If they sell 100,000 core rulebooks, at 60 bucks, and the cost to make them, receive them, catalog an warehouse them, etc...is 50 dollars, they make 1,000,000 profit. Nice.
But they will also have to have 5,000,000 in upfront investment to have the books made. And that is assuming they sell every book they make. To break even they need to sell 5 out of ever 6 made. They need to sell about 84,000 of the 100,000 copies to...
Even if the numbers are off, if I consider what I buy in a year:
- maybe one or two hardcover rules book
- 12 monthly AP modules
- 6 (or so) modules
- 12 (or so) Companion books
- a few novels and planet story books
Clearly, the rules are not going to be that big a deal unless the profit margin is massive. I'm probably close to bing an ideal customer for Paizo (except I'm overseas which costs in shipping terms, but probably more me that them) but even then, on average, they are shipping (at a rough estimate) one hardcover book for every 12 softcover. If I liked pdf's, I'd be even cheaper for them to service.
The OGL was originally seen as being like open source software. Paizo more-or-less give away (or at least, don't make much money on) the rules, a bit like the operating system, and then make money by supplying content to run on it. It seems to be a good model for them, anyway.
You understand that there is a fundamental difference between comic book authors inventing new ways for their character to be relevant, and PCs scratching their heads over why the Chosen (or one of like five other Realms supergroups) leave the fate of the world in the hands of heroes with maybe a 50/50 chance of success when they could just take a half hour out of their own busy schedule and solve the whole damn thing with complete confidence, right?
When people phrase statements like this I want to say.. no I didn't realize. What you may not realize is what follows:
That is in no way a response that addresses my point that it is easily countered with an explanation that works logically. Maybe the High level characters need to make sure there will be heroes to secede them. Maybe the players need to take themselves out of the 'player' and go in character, and realize they are playing proactive people. There really is no good excuse for this. This goes along the lines of cop out.
Luke Skywalker blew up the death star. Anakin killed the Emperor. Why should we play in the STAR WARS universe we already know it will be saved?
The point of having a long-standing, popular setting is that you can actually play in it. It is fundamentally unsatisfying for a player to enter a game with the expectation that he will be experiencing the Realms he has been following and then discover mid-game that he's actually in the DM's personal butchered version of it.
So it is fundamentally better for players that have been following the realms to play in WOTC's butchered version of it?
No amount of reading guards against this.
I disagree thoroughly. You are going to run a game in Scardale, read the source material relevant. Or pick an area with less lore. The player expecting to follow the realms, will be happy to focus on one particular area nad have it be right. Provided that players being angry at a DM was ever really a problem.
That's not for me to say one way or another. But Sissyl claimed the reason for "nuking" the Realms was because they believe backstory is a bad thing, and that's simply not the case. To reduce such a monumental decision to so naive an explanation is disingenuous.
I agree, and DO NOT believe the realms was nuked because back story was not important.
If that were the only thing they cared about, they could have dealt with it in any number of other, less dramatic ways (or even left it alone and hand-waved the whole thing).
Yes they did it to be more accessible. To the new younger audience.
Just because you didn't see the problems I pointed out doesn't mean they didn't exist.
There is no way for me to know this. I suspect it existed for a minority, or people 'that would have played fr' if it didn't require so much reading. The people that supported the realms for most of its incarnation, from the fan sites, I am quite sure most of them were not OK with the changes.
I don't think Forgotten Realms made any gains in marketing there.
Well, isn't this nice. I have not once been uncivil in this discussion. I have been clear that what I wrote was MY opinions. And yet, I have been called lots of things here, none of them pretty. Apparently, it is okay to criticize 4th edition AS LONG AS you do not try to explain WHY you don't like it, because when I tried that, I was held to massive standards: Previous posts I made did not even exist, everything that could even remotely bemisconstrued was, I was called out on providing PROOF for every tiny part of a sentence. And so on.
I don't feel that my posts regarding your opinions were uncivil (though I don't think your specifically talking about what I wrote). Your experiences with 4E greatly differ from mine, yet those experiences cannot be hand-waved away and it's silly for anyone trying to do otherwise. At this point in the discussion, I think it's safe to say that changing your opinion on the product is rather moot. However, there are possibly others (lurkers, some call them) that are weighing what people say on these types of threads and might be persuaded into trying a game or running a game of 4th Edition.
With that in mind, I think it's pretty important to clarify one's criticism of that product. You've stated your opinions on why you feel 4E is like WoW (or other various MMOs) and other opinions that bothered you about the product such as the naming of monsters or the lack of system functions that help facilitate roleplaying found in other editions . Others gave counter-opinions (worded with strong emotions) but you haven't really attempted to become more clear on those issues.
For example: "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."
Could you elaborate on what activities 4E simplifies for tabletop RPGs which doesn't include fighting? We all know 4E doesn't have Crafting skills but a simple exercise in DM fiat and help with the DMG on Variable Skill DCs table can easily facilitate that sort activity.
Perhaps it's your opinion those skills found in 3rd Edition (Perform, Craft, Profession) helped round out a character and I'm willing to agree. However, I don't think it would be in any character's best interest to put emphasis on these skills (save the Bard and Perform) in the form of actual ranks, otherwise known as a finite resource. Honestly, I never seen these Skills used in any consistant way that actually promoted roleplaying.
Personally I think these 3 skills are better off as a compromise/disucssion between a PC and a DM if those are aspects they'd like to flesh out more. If you want to make a weapon, item, armor, etc. then it's better that you and the DM work together to make it happen. Your DM knows your group, your characters, and the scope of the campaign MUCH better than a DC-check table with 15 different variations/modifications.
As for the Monters additional HPs, well your correct there. PCs do more damage in 4E but I've always felt the monster's had a bit too much in the HP department. But most of the Math for monster HP and damage thresholds were changed with the Monster Manual 3 and later products. So if you were used to only the 1st monster manual, I can understand your opinion here.
But it's also the DMs job to make combat go quicker. If he's feels that monsters are hanging on for too long with 29 HPs then I usually just play it that the next successful attack will kill it. There's nothing stating that monsters HAVE to be dropped to 0 hps to die and there's also the choice of running away from the PCs. Bacially, as DM, make it fun using the rules presented. When the rules fail at some point, ad-hoc it to make it work instead of conforming to what's written down as Law.
But fine. Even saying that it's my opinion and that others' mileages vary wasn't enough. It was still apparently an attack, inflammatory and downright evil. So I can honesty say that I understand why you guys get crude remarks about your beloved game.
Other people on here post with emotions ranging from mild annoyance to rage and I think it comes from the near-consistant defending some of us feel towards the game we enjoy. I've dealt with adversity for pretty much my whole life as a Seahawks fan growing up in Pittsburgh (aka Steeler counter) where people get violent against people wearing something other than Black and Gold...*facepalm* so I guess I can take 4E criticism with a grain of salt. Most complaints can be aimed at any genrè of the game with little distinction other than "keywords and phrases".
AM: It seems like a lot of the design decisions in 4th where you moved away from 3rd Edition or Classic seem more similar to World of Warcraft or similar computer games. Was that a very purposeful, strategic choice because of, as you said, people coming in with certain assumptions from entertainment they've already consumed?
AC: Some of it was that and some of it was simply a measure of - as professional game designers, we look at all games for lessons. Certainly, the lessons we learn from online games are going to be the most obvious ones because they have a lot of people familiar with the sources, but there's also lessons about turn management from European board games, interface ideas from card games.
We try to look at all sorts of games for "What can we learn? What makes this game work well? Or not work well? And how could we adapt that, how should we adapt that to the roleplaying game format?"
I wouldn't fault people on this thread making comparisons to MMO's. The above was from an interview with Andy Collins about the creation of 4th.
If Mr. Collins admits that they drew a lot of inspiration from games, it just seems obvious that people will detect that inspiration and draw comparisons to that particular game.
Good Interview by the way.
I think it's very bad phraseology deliberately intended to obscure your meaning if you say a game "feels like an MMO", unless the game is massively multiplayer and online. Which I'll note 4e isn't. If that isn't the case, then it might help a little to explain which MMO the game feels like. Otherwise it looks like you think all MMOs are the same, and if you believe that is a correct opinion then your opinions on other matters might be considered suspect due to demonstrated ignorance.
The only reason I am quoting you here is just to point out you felt it necessary to note 4e is not an MMO. That is self evident.
People offering posts on these forums must always annotate in silly ways like that, just to make sure someone is not offended. That may be why you noted 4e is not an MMO. People need to be able to read opinion better. That would go a LONG way into quelling perceived slights and escalating situations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is just easier to make the comparison that 4E supports online gaming better, or is a board game, just because it is a streamlined system, or it is based on tactial movement. Basically the rules are easier understand, and it is easier to make a comparison based on the fact. The most recent computer games have been simplified from a mechanics and graphics standpoint, because it appeals to a broader audience.
Pathfinder shares all the qualities of the above statements on 4E, but you may be disuaded to state it supports online gaming, or board game qualities. For instance, Dungeon and Dragons Online doesn't support the entire rule set found in 3.5, and therefore you may state 3.5 was not written for online games. But I expect any recent computer games has roots in the very first edition of D&D and it's successors.
So most the time, the term "computer game" or "board game" is taken as a negative connotation for roleplaying games, but all us roleplaying geeks are much more intelligent to accept that fact; or drive it as a point, because we would be criticizing the games we like to play.
But overall, you can roleplay with either system, and whatever comparisons you make, the same qualities can be found in either system. And trying to have a online game, board game, or roleplaying game appeal to a broader audience is a goal if you want to have any type of longevity when considering the multimedia choices present today.
As a friendly reminder to everyone, trademark != copyright.
It is a little more complex then that, but generally yes. I am even convinced part of the reason for the DC Reboot may be to dodge money WB has to pay to the Superman Heirs.
AM: It seems like a lot of the design decisions in 4th where you moved away from 3rd Edition or Classic seem more similar to World of Warcraft or similar computer games. Was that a very purposeful, strategic choice because of, as you said, people coming in with certain assumptions from entertainment they've already consumed?
AC: Some of it was that and some of it was simply a measure of - as professional game designers, we look at all games for lessons. Certainly, the lessons we learn from online games are going to be the most obvious ones because they have a lot of people familiar with the sources, but there's also lessons about turn management from European board games, interface ideas from card games.
We try to look at all sorts of games for "What can we learn? What makes this game work well? Or not work well? And how could we adapt that, how should we adapt that to the roleplaying game format?"
I wouldn't fault people on this thread making comparisons to MMO's. The above was from an interview with Andy Collins about the creation of 4th.
If Mr. Collins admits that they drew a lot of inspiration from games, it just seems obvious that people will detect that inspiration and draw comparisons to that particular game.
Good Interview by the way.
That really was the heart of my point. That interview would have saved me alot of grief. Where did you find it?
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.I'll go even further than that. There are a lot of 3.5/Pathfinder people who create Intimidate and Diplomacy monsters, using feats, and other jiggery to get really monstrous modifiers and pretty much expect to auto-win social interaction results on barely anything more than a die-roll. Pathfinder not only has not lessened this in some cases it's excaberated the problem with Traits and other new modifiers.
That's not roleplaying. For many players, what should be interactive roleplay has become another form of combat to munchkin results. "I'm taking the Leadership feat and here is what I'm ordering up for my next pet cleric, items and all." Much of what should be left as give and take between players and GM has become mechanised and thus subject to same kind of manipulation as combat mechanics.
One might say that 4E doesn't have much in mechanics for roleplaying. I can argue however that many players use 3.5 mechanics to circumvent roleplay.
I can agree to some extent, however it also depends on how social interactions are handled at your gametable.
If it is a case of "I want to roll a diplomacy check to find out whatever the person knows about whatever" then you are right.
However, some groups handle diplomacy differently. A good example would be the AP carrion crown - Trial of the beast.
In our group, you need to be able to state what you are going to say, and you roll diplomacy to see how well it is received. In this way, diplomacy checks aren't circumventing role-play, in my opinion
[
I'll go even further than that. There are a lot of 3.5/Pathfinder people who create Intimidate and Diplomacy monsters, using feats, and other jiggery to get really monstrous modifiers and pretty much expect to auto-win social interaction results on barely anything more than a die-roll. Pathfinder not only has not lessened this in some cases it's excaberated the problem with Traits and other new modifiers.
That's not roleplaying. For many players, what should be interactive roleplay has become another form of combat to munchkin results. "I'm taking the Leadership feat and here is what I'm ordering up for my next pet cleric, items and all." Much of what should be left as give and take between players and GM has become mechanised and thus subject to same kind of manipulation as combat mechanics.
No that is not the spirit at all. The Roleplaying is important. This is how I would run the situation: PC wants to convince an official of something. Roleplay it. Did he screw the pooch, auto fail, hero point will let you roll Diplomacy to recover, did he botch: -5, did he do OK no modifier, do well: +5, absolutely convincing add 10+ through auto succeed.
You cannot duck out and just roll though. That is auto fail. Really the bonuses for RP are not necessarily common in small situations. Generally though in lets call it BOSS RP interactions, my players really shine.For mooks (trade marked as MINIONS in 4e (JUST KIDDING SCOTT!), to move the story along, a roll is nice. Most of the traits like charming are situational. I use Diplomacy alot, and I have not found it to cut down RP. It does let me move the story along when I have to.
[
That really was the heart of my point. That interview would have saved me alot of grief. Where did you find it?
Link for entire interview is below, it is pretty much WoTC's take on the strategy behind 4th ED (sorry can't figure out how to create link)
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/op-ed/7242-The-Tru th-About-4th-Edition-Part-One-of-Our-Exclusive-Interview-with-Wizards-of-th e-Coast
[
That really was the heart of my point. That interview would have saved me alot of grief. Where did you find it?
Link for entire interview is below, it is pretty much WoTC's take on the strategy behind 4th ED (sorry can't figure out how to create link)
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/op-ed/7242-The-Tru th-About-4th-Edition-Part-One-of-Our-Exclusive-Interview-with-Wizards-of-th e-Coast
YOUUU kick arse!!!!
I can agree to some extent, however it also depends on how social interactions are handled at your gametable.
If it is a case of "I want to roll a diplomacy check to find out whatever the person knows about whatever" then you are right.
However, some groups handle diplomacy differently. A good example would be the AP carrion crown - Trial of the beast.
** spoiler omitted **
In our group, you need to be able to state what you are going to say, and you roll diplomacy to see how well it is received. In this...
I can't wait to run that part!
One of my favourite parts of MASS EFFECT 2 was when you had to convince the Quarians of Tali's innocence. Man that was one of the best RP moments I have had in a game... and it was in a video game. It was all just choices, but what I felt playing that game at that moment was the same feeling I get playing a Table top Roleplaying game. If Bioware capitalizes on a way to make RP work in video games, like really work... WOW will not be the ruler.
[
That really was the heart of my point. That interview would have saved me alot of grief. Where did you find it?
Link for entire interview is below, it is pretty much WoTC's take on the strategy behind 4th ED (sorry can't figure out how to create link)
Fixed that for you :)
the code is (url="blah-blah")Insert Name HEre(/url) but use square brackets [] in place of the round ones
|
|
However, some groups handle diplomacy differently. A good example would be the AP carrion crown - Trial of the beast.
** spoiler omitted **
Funnily enough that sounds like it might be similar to a skill challenge - multiple rolls (rather than just one) before success is achieved with in character talk and actions intersperced to justify the roll.
In fact Web of Corruption (Shadows Last Stand Part II), a PFS scenario I played in, had a very similar series of diplomacy tasks that again I felt was effectively a skill challenge (I am tempted to buy the scenario to read how it is represented).
I can agree to some extent, however it also depends on how social interactions are handled at your gametable.
If it is a case of "I want to roll a diplomacy check to find out whatever the person knows about whatever" then you are right.
However, some groups handle diplomacy differently. A good example would be the AP carrion crown - Trial of the beast.
** spoiler omitted **
In our group, you need to be able to state what you are going to say, and you roll diplomacy to see how well it is received. In this...
I can't wait to run that part!
One of my favourite parts of MASS EFFECT 2 was when you had to convince the Quarians of Tali's innocence. Man that was one of the best RP moments I have had in a game... and it was in a video game. It was all just choices, but what I felt playing that game at that moment was the same feeling I get playing a Table top Roleplaying game. If Bioware capitalizes on a way to make RP work in video games, like really work... WOW will not be the ruler.
You actually brought me to the reason I didn't like 4th ED, we didn't find it immersive enough for our group, it felt to us more like playing a strategy board game than being immersed in a RP experience.
But Andy Collins summed it up perfectly (this was when he was asked about his thoughts on Pathfinder)
"I think they're both great games, and if they were more similar the hobby would be worse for it. I think it's better to have games that are more distinct from one another that gives people clear choices. "Well this is the style of game I want to play, or this other one is the style of game I want to play." Nothing wrong with that. "
...and thanks to Diffan, for proving that not only are these boards entertaining, but educational too!