Right, but the value of each of those criteria is subjectively determined by the individual. Hence, the resulting ranking of RPG systems in how 'good' they are would be subjective.You can objectively say one game is easier to play or is more balanced by using certain metrics (ie number of rules, number of choices, length of turns, preparation time, mistakes made, decision trees, etc). Sure, individual people may assign different weights to those metrics but its entirely possible to find an objective measurement of good.
The individual differences in weights are what makes it impossible to find an objective measurement of how good a ruleset is versus another. What's more, the weights are not static even for a single individual - if a variable moves in one direction, its weight does not necessarily stay constant.
That may well be. I am unfamiliar with the extent of support WotC currently provides for its settings. From what I have heard, it seems that the flavor conversion of those settings to 4E has been a mixed bag, with Forgotten Realms violated, Eberron done OK and Dark Sun done very well. As to post-conversion support the settings have received, however, I lack the knowledge to comment.There's simply not a lot of depth to any single setting released during 4e. Each settings gets a player's guide, a campaign setting with maybe an adventure or two. Compare that to Paizo where its all about their setting.
I see. Well, that's a bit sad, I have to agree. I don't use Golarion, but it does appear that Paizo does support it much more extensively.
You can objectively say one game is easier to play or is more balanced by using certain metrics (ie number of rules, number of choices, length of turns, preparation time, mistakes made, decision trees, etc). Sure, individual people may assign different weights to those metrics but its entirely possible to find an objective measurement of good.
It really isn't because those subjective weights make all the difference. You can make objective statements about things like balance, length of turns, prep time etc for certain. I cant disagree with that.
However certain things are distinctly subjective. Things like the feel of the game, or the relative connection of the mechancis to the flavor they represent.
There are plenty of groups out there that could care less about balance and dont mind how long turns take (I lump most of the people that are fans of high level and epic 3.x play in this category). That means for those people, those objective aspects make the game far less 'good' then someone worried about pvp competitiveness of the classes.
Then there are the interesting swings to so called objective metrics. For instance, you state number of ruels and number of choices as objective measures. However, depending on the group, these can be either good or bad. Some people like simple rules light games. Other prefer robust and rules heavy games where every situation is detailed out in RaW. Pagecount or number of rules is an objective value, but its relative weight in terms of how 'good' it makes an rpg is entirely subjective. Number of options is in the same boat here. Some people like core only, or less the core only, others like every option that has ever been thought up.
Um, wow ...
I do know, however, that for me, as long as I can continue to play Paizo's APs and modules with the 3.5 rules with minimal conversion, then I will continue to buy them.As soon as I can't, I'll dump Paizo in a second.
I know! It's pretty awesome right now, and I'm buying most of their adventures like a crazy man.
A mixed bag, with Forgotten Realms violated,
+1
I do disagree about the campaign settings, though. In keeping with the advancing technology of the 4th edition, Wizards moved the forgotten realms "forward" both in time and, in their opinion, conceptually and look at the horrid mess they caused. A grotesque mockery of the world that was loved by many. Is that progress, sir?
It is in my view - the Forgotten Realms was my favorite setting when it came out (it made an even better first impression on me than Golarion did). By the end of 3.5 it was my least favorite. I for one consider the 4th edition version to be a definite improvement.
There's no question it annoyed many (and perhaps even most), so I can hardly argue it was a sound business strategy. Nonetheless, I think it was a sign of progress from the perspective of designing/developing a game setting even if there was a high degree of failure in either the marketting of the changes, their implementation or in understanding what the FR fans actually wanted.
|
Um, wow ...
I do know, however, that for me, as long as I can continue to play Paizo's APs and modules with the 3.5 rules with minimal conversion, then I will continue to buy them.As soon as I can't, I'll dump Paizo in a second.
Is it so surprising that someone would stop buying a product that no longer meets their needs?
I stopped buying APs because I don't have time to run the six ones I already have. Is that a 'wow' inducing action to you as well?
|
Um, wow ...
I do know, however, that for me, as long as I can continue to play Paizo's APs and modules with the 3.5 rules with minimal conversion, then I will continue to buy them.As soon as I can't, I'll dump Paizo in a second.
Is it so surprising that someone would stop buying a product that no longer meets their needs?
I stopped buying APs because I don't have time to run the six ones I already have. Is that a 'wow' inducing action to you as well?
+1 While I would still play in a game of Rifts I sure as hell would not run one again.
|
Good for you? It is much easier getting people new to table top gaming into 4e, especially Essentials, than it is for Pathfinder. I'm pretty such Paizo knows this. It's why they are releasing a trimmed down version of the game that is intended for beginners. See the beginner's box.Wow - I could not DISAGREE more with this.... I often convert Pathfinder modules to 4e because it makes for a better experience for my players and myself.
I really feel they are being held back by the archaic 3.5 ruleset.
4e did a beginners box set but it was supposed to be easy as it is...wonder why?
Probably casue it helps to break it down for those that are not already comfortable wit RPGs...
I think your opinion that 4e is obviously better to use to introduce new players to table top gaming is pure subjective.
4e did a beginners box set but it was supposed to be easy as it is...wonder why?
Probably casue it helps to break it down for those that are not already comfortable wit RPGs...
I think your opinion that 4e is obviously better to use to introduce new players to table top gaming is pure subjective.
It clearly is, but is it controversial? I think the essentials boxed sets are better than the "PHB/DMG/MM" route and better than the PF Core for beginners. No doubt Paizo will match their usual standards and the beginner box will also be a terrific introduction - who knows which will be most newbie-friendly?
Do you think the Core rules of PF are just as easy for a new player to pick up as the PHB for 4th edition players? I don't think it's even close (in an unguided setting - with an experienced guide I think the rulebooks are largely irrelevant next to skill of the teacher).
It is the way table top games are played. People in their teens now, in general, do not want to sit around a table and play the game. Doesn't matter what the rules are. The teenage generation received and processes information in a way that is not complementary to TTG. I love books, I love reading, and I love studying. This new generation, does not care about the bound book. They want their information in quick digestible bytes.
Eventually for this hobby market to succeed, the delivery of information is going to have to change. Not the rules. WOTC is going in that direction, I beleive but there is much more to it.
The teens are interested in the genre culture now. They will play games as part of that culture, but I think the days of grabbing your books, getting together with your friends, ordering pizza, and gorging on chips are only being kept alive by older fans. I would say 25 and above.
Education on both the secondary and university level sees they need to change. Traditional TTG borrows alot from the education model.
I am a member of a LARP with about 150 people that show up at a given event. MANY of these people are about 16. They LOVE fantasy. They LOVE Horror. Getting any of them to sit down to table top is near impossible.
Maybe my friends and I are just weird... I'm only 22 and we enjoy table top gaming. While we are well out are teens, we are not grognards of any sort. The reason I enjoy Pathfinder over what I've gathered of D&D4E is that Paizo's setting is more engaging and the rules better support the verisimilitude that I enjoy in a roleplaying game.
The truth is that you can roleplay in any system, but the rules dictate what concepts and settings are viable. While I don't think they should just discard 3.5 rules entirely, I think providing balanced, alternate rule changes can be really nice.
|
|
4e did a beginners box set but it was supposed to be easy as it is...wonder why?
Probably casue it helps to break it down for those that are not already comfortable wit RPGs...
I think your opinion that 4e is obviously better to use to introduce new players to table top gaming is pure subjective.
It clearly is, but is it controversial? I think the essentials boxed sets are better than the "PHB/DMG/MM" route and better than the PF Core for beginners. No doubt Paizo will match their usual standards and the beginner box will also be a terrific introduction - who knows which will be most newbie-friendly?
Do you think the Core rules of PF are just as easy for a new player to pick up as the PHB for 4th edition players? I don't think it's even close (in an unguided setting - with an experienced guide I think the rulebooks are largely irrelevant next to skill of the teacher).
Essentials are not the focal point of learning...the poster just states unequivocally that it is easier to introduce noobs via 4e.
You frequent the 4e WotC boards? How many times people came in asking what [w] meant? Numerous and I mean ridiculous in the amount of times. But it was explained and is integral to the game since every power has the [w] function.
So yeah, with a little patience and comprehension, the CRB with all it's girth is just as easy as the 4e PHB.
The more I think about this, the more I think 5dventure could be a great thing. Not because it will be my new game, I have a hard time seeing that, but because two things might happen: it's another corporate hack and Paizo gets new customers in droves, or because it could contain good parts that will spur creativity for other games. I do hope they have learnt their lesson on not saying old editions suck, however. The 4th edition players would be so angry.
|
From a marketing standpoint, Hasbro is a juggernaut, with unlimited coffers, if they were to do the smart thing, then 5E would look exactly like Pathfinder, it would weaken Paizos brand and lose them lots of money, which being the smaller fish they cant afford to do, and thus begins their slow spiral downward, not having enough money to put out top quality products in a timely fashion pushes them further out of business.
The the pessimistic side of me, and thats only if Habro wants to play hardball. I've read that they want to do something for all editions of D&D, and I can't believe they mean some Rosetta stone RPG book that transfers any edition character into 5E, cant be done. I take that to mean that they will develop products for every edition, or close to it, 2E and onward.
Paizo just needs to keep doing what they are doing and try things here and there, like minis, and keep putting out great looking and well written products. They cant become reactionary, thats where hasbro is now and they are likely to do it wrong, or just make things worse for themselves.
The hiring of Monte Cook means that they may very well be trying to clone Pathfinder, thats really the worst case scenario for Paizo. If they do that it means Hasbro is trying to put Paizo out of business.
Essentials are not the focal point of learning...It clearly is, but is it controversial? I think the essentials boxed sets are better than the "PHB/DMG/MM" route and better than the PF Core for beginners. No doubt Paizo will match their usual standards and the beginner box will also be a terrific introduction - who knows which will be most newbie-friendly?
Do you think the Core rules of PF are just as easy for a new player to pick up as the PHB for 4th edition players? I don't think it's even close (in an unguided setting - with an experienced guide I think the rulebooks are largely irrelevant next to skill of the teacher).
I don't really know what that means. What I meant was that in my opinion it's easier to teach someone who has never played an RPG before via essentials products than it is via the PF Core rules or via the PH. I was surprised that would be controversial.
I suspect the upcoming Beginner's box from Paizo will also be better at teaching a total newcomer than either the PF core rules or the PH.
the poster just states unequivocally that it is easier to introduce noobs via 4e.
Sure. I was agreeing with you that it was subjective and wondering if you disagreed with it. Leaving aside essentials and the Beginner set, I think the PH is an easier route for total newcomers than the PF Core book. (In no small part because of its size and simple compartmentalisation). I'm surprised that's a point of difference (irrespective of any views as to which game is preferable).
You frequent the 4e WotC boards? How many times people came in asking what [w] meant? Numerous and I mean ridiculous in the amount of times. But it was explained and is integral to the game since every power has the [w] function.
I don't mean to imply that nobody will ever have any queries - I think that's true no matter what game you play, personally. I think WoTC improved on the learnability with Essentials and no doubt Paizo will do the same with their beginner set.
So yeah, with a little patience and comprehension, the CRB with all it's girth is just as easy as the 4e PHB.
Does this mean it require more patience and comprehension though? That's kind of my point. I think a rank beginner can teach themselves PF without a huge amount of effort, that wasnt really at issue. I was merely expressing surprise that someone may have found the Core rules of PF to be an easier route into RPGs than the 4th edition player's handbook.
The last eight pages demonstrate - if anything needed to - why Wizards won't be able to come up with a 'one size fits all' 5e.
The last eight pages demonstrate - if anything needed to - why Wizards won't be able to come up with a 'one size fits all' 5e.
+1 ..... though the idea of modularity that Mearls was talking about was interesting and perhaps promising. In theory, at least, it could reach out to various player demographics and draw them back. It will be interesting to watch and see what comes out from WoTCs' R&D department over the next couple of years, and if that concept of modularity is something that they can run with.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um, wow ...
I do know, however, that for me, as long as I can continue to play Paizo's APs and modules with the 3.5 rules with minimal conversion, then I will continue to buy them.As soon as I can't, I'll dump Paizo in a second.
Is it so surprising that someone would stop buying a product that no longer meets their needs?
I stopped buying APs because I don't have time to run the six ones I already have. Is that a 'wow' inducing action to you as well?
No, not at all! If a given product longer meets someone's needs, I certainly have no problem with them deciding to longer buy that product. Heck, that's capitalism!
My reaction was mostly toward the "As soon as I can't, I'll dump Paizo in a second" comment. I think I sometimes get a little tired of the overly antagonistic, going-for-the-shock value way people sometimes communicate on message boards.
I take that to mean that they will develop products for every edition, or close to it, 2E and onward.
So after the famine of no digital back catalog they're gonna do a 180 and open the floodgates? Going so far as to bring 2E back as well?
That seems a bit far fetched. Also given Wizards hideous track record of deliberately picking digital distribution strategies it will likely be something proprietary that won't run well on a mobile device or will be strictly online subscription fee based (yuck, no thanks).
They can't clone Pathfinder unless actually get some decent adventure/setting writers. Monte alone won't be able to do that. They also won't have a prayer if they stick with the GSL. The fact that I can bring on "new" players with PRD and let them connivence themselves to buy into Core/Companion/AP lines is another reason Paizo still wins. The OGL, especially the way Paizo is supporting it, makes it easy to spread by word of blog.
I can tell new players who want to check out the game before they buy to look at the PRD. For 4e new players I have to say, "go check out the books from a library". What do you think a lazy cyber-socialmedia-junky is more likely to go do?
Paizo seems to be making most of their money off the "stories" they write an not the rules that run those stories. Wizards has been trying to make money off the rules which have very few "stories" to tell.
|
|
My reaction was mostly toward the "As soon as I can't, I'll dump Paizo in a second" comment. I think I sometimes get a little tired of the overly antagonistic, going-for-the-shock value way people sometimes communicate on message boards.
Okay, 'not the message, but the tone'? That's reasonable. I have problems with that myself, both in my own and others.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Eberron is a different story (still my favorite setting to this day) but that's stagnated because of lack of updates.Pfft. At least WotC acknowledges it exists. Greyhawk hasn't had much active support since the 80s ended, and these days I dunno if anyone at WotC even realizes that it ever existed.
Well we had 'Paizo-Hawk' with the APs.
Though look at Faerun. Sometimes obscurity is a good thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just realized. 5th edition will be a major change. You will be able to play big red birds, fast triangular yellow birds, small blue birds that can split into three, and a few other exciting classes. Monsters will be replaced by pigs, swine, boars, piglets, and so on. Adventures will be things like "destroy the pigs' wooden house" and "destroy the pigs' stone castle".
350 million downloads, people...
The last eight pages demonstrate - if anything needed to - why Wizards won't be able to come up with a 'one size fits all' 5e.
+1
Mainly because D&D means something different to every individual. It's really impossible to please everybody at the same time. I'm not sure how I feel about the approach of a new edition so soon after 4E's release, but if it's a fun game then I'll buy it. I don't hold any silly notions of "Brand Loyalty" as if it's a war and I have to pick sides. It's just not that cut-and-dry. People play what they like and find like-minded individuals that share their beliefs. I'm fortunate enougth to game with a group that enjoys v3.5, Pathfinder, and 4E in their own unique ways.
I guess my biggest issue with a new edition is how much attention will be focused towards balance and that everyone can equally contribute to the story without heavy-handed requirements. In this regard, I've always felt 4E did a better job with distributing the responsibility equally among the group instead of a few specific classes obtaining the ability to do another classes job but better.
If they were truely smart, they'd playtest the crap out of the system THEN put out a Beta verion (like Pathfinder did) and get some customer feedback from the general public. This could allow them to generate customers with free content AND gain further system information that helps make the game better. Additionally, this will help players get a feel for the game prior to shelling out $$ for it AND if they're invested enougth with the Beta rules, chances are they're going to see how the Core-book adds up. They'll also probably want to continue the adventure their characters, made with the system, are on so that means continued revenue with an excitement for more books.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It is in my view - the Forgotten Realms was my favorite setting when it came out (it made an even better first impression on me than Golarion did). By the end of 3.5 it was my least favorite. I for one consider the 4th edition version to be a definite improvement.
You're dead to me :P
There was advancement in the novel lines that I didn't mind. I loved Blackstaff and at the end while I was sad that Khelben died I wasn't outraged they'd killed a major NPC. If anything the novel brought home the, "Being a Chosen of Mystra sometimes means there's a bad Choice on the horizion."
What did bother me was that all the development in that novel, including a new Blackstaff. was blown away in the tac-nuking of the Realms. As well as all the backstory of the Realms themselves.*
*
|
|
I can tell new players who want to check out the game before they buy to look at the PRD. For 4e new players I have to say, "go check out the books from a library". What do you think a lazy cyber-socialmedia-junky is more likely to go do?
In case you ever do want to point someone at some free 4e stuff for them to try out here is a link to some quick start rules, Keep on the Shadowfell (updated) and Khyber's Harvest (the Free RPG Day Eberron Scenario form 2009).
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/TryDnD.aspxI must admit I had to google to get to that page, unfortunately now the D&D website doesn't have an easy to find way to get to that page (the New to D&D? link sends you to the page that lists Essentials).
What did bother me was that all the development in that novel, including a new Blackstaff. was blown away in the tac-nuking of the Realms. As well as all the backstory of the Realms themselves.*
I've never understood this mindset. Do you feel the backstory and history of Faerûn, circa 1183 DR is blown away when you play in the 1375 DR Realms? The bad thing about the timejump was that WotC has expressed that they're not going to play out (ie. publish) novels from previous timelines. Of course, flash backs happen and Greenwood has done this from time to time, but for the most part those stories are long gone. That's the biggest loss I've found with the Realms of 1479 DR.
Other than that, I think the Realms are just as much fun to adventure in as they were before but now with newer challenges to face.
|
|
It appears from the Legends & Lore series of articles that Wizards of the Coast is keen on designing a game that will reunite the splintered D&D fan-base.
LOL Good luck with that.
TBH I much prefer PFRPG. it's compatible, with a bit of work, with all the 3.x stuff I SPENT LOADS OF CASH ON in support of WoTC. Point being is I've spent hard earned cash, like a lot of people on 3.x, and I ain't prepared to have those sourcebooks sitting there gathering dust unused...even if 5E is written to be compatible, which I doubt it will be.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
What did bother me was that all the development in that novel, including a new Blackstaff. was blown away in the tac-nuking of the Realms. As well as all the backstory of the Realms themselves.*
I've never understood this mindset. Do you feel the backstory and history of Faerûn, circa 1183 DR is blown away when you play in the 1375 DR Realms? The bad thing about the timejump was that WotC has expressed that they're not going to play out (ie. publish) novels from previous timelines. Of course, flash backs happen and Greenwood has done this from time to time, but for the most part those stories are long gone. That's the biggest loss I've found with the Realms of 1479 DR.
Other than that, I think the Realms are just as much fun to adventure in as they were before but now with newer challenges to face.
Did you read the asterix? (my spoilered note, not the comic).
That's the backstory I'm talking about. This 'other planet swapping' thing was a 4e artifact.
I am irritated that stuff like the new Blackstaff was introduced, then glossed over. (I'm also irritated that books like the last Mythal cut off all the fey'ri, but I can ignore that part) I like new characters being introduced. If in Dave Gross' next book Jeggare gets killed horribly and it becomes the story of 'A dog and his tiefling' I'll enjoy Arnisant's take on things. If they pick up a new companion I'll enjoy (hopefully) the new character. But if in the last Radovan story we get a long set up how he's training a new guy to guard the Boss, and then we never get another Jeggare story, that would bother me.
That's why I hated the reboot with the novels, characters I enjoyed were gone.
Did you read the asterix? (my spoilered note, not the comic).
That's the backstory I'm talking about. This 'other planet swapping' thing was a 4e artifact.
I did and I've never really found any resources that say Earth had gates and portals opened to Faerûn or that there was a connection between the two. One mention of this, found in the Grand History of the Realms, mentions Elminster meeting Ed Greenwood but I really thought that was thrown in for fun.
I am irritated that stuff like the new Blackstaff was introduced, then glossed over. (I'm also irritated that books like the last Mythal cut off all the fey'ri, but I can ignore that part) I like new characters being introduced. If in Dave Gross' next book Jeggare gets killed horribly and it becomes the story of 'A dog and his tiefling' I'll enjoy Arnisant's take on things. If they pick up a new companion I'll enjoy (hopefully) the new character. But if in the last Radovan story we get a long set up how he's training a new guy to guard the Boss, and then we never get another Jeggare story, that would bother me.That's why I hated the reboot with the novels, characters I enjoyed were gone.
Agreed with the characters being axed. Though I didn't read that the Fey'ri were totally wiped out. Sure, the elves retake Myth Drannor ('bout damn time too!) but Saria's army disbanded, and they fled not totally evaporated. So I'm farily certain there are Fey'ri still running about the Realms.
|
|
The hiring of Monte Cook means that they may very well be trying to clone Pathfinder, thats really the worst case scenario for Paizo. If they do that it means Hasbro is trying to put Paizo out of business.
Which is business...sometimes business practises suck
If they do clone PFRPG, the wise will see it for what it is.
But aren't all other gaming companies Hasbro's rivals and therefore wanting to put them out of business. I think the days of producing gaming modules and supplements as a labour of love for the D&D brand are long gone, it started with the release of 3.5e even though that was the edition i got back into FRP with!!...The D&D brand is now a money juggernaut filling the coffers of the Hasbro Board of Directors.
There is no need to clone Pathfinder as they own the D&D brand. I can't think of anything significant Pathfinder has done for the ruleset, to fix some of the problems via 3.5. WOTC would be wise to focus more on content, and actually showcase the rule set with adventures and third party support, versus putting out more option books. As to 4E, technically they just need to up it a notch in regards to quality and diversity (add some extra flavor and/or fluff mechanics to each class).
I did and I've never really found any resources that say Earth had gates and portals opened to Faerûn or that there was a connection between the two. One mention of this, found in the Grand History of the Realms, mentions Elminster meeting Ed Greenwood but I really thought that was thrown in for fun.
I think it is hidden away in some old 1e/2e books like easter eggs. Regardless, it is very clear once you look at some of the nations and Ed Greenwood has said this, many, many times.
That thing they called the realms for 4e, I am not sure what it is, although it did use a great deal of the realms names, some of its history and maps but it really is not the realms, nor could it go down they way it was written, using realms lore.
The designers said outright, they disliked the realms and really knew very little about it. And they were far to lazy to read the 3e books, much less read the older books or ya know call up and ask ed.
So they just made stuff up and used names and history from another setting to make a whole new setting.
I think it is hidden away in some old 1e/2e books like easter eggs. Regardless, it is very clear once you look at some of the nations and Ed Greenwood has said this, many, many times.That thing they called the realms for 4e, I am not sure what it is, although it did use a great deal of the realms names, some of its history and maps but it really is not the realms, nor could it go down they way it was written, using realms lore.
Sure it could. I'd get into a big debate about Lore and how even if the Weave were around it could still easily support 4E Magical mechanics or how the Spellplague ironed out a lot of problems and inconsistancy with the 1375 Realms but I doubt I'd change any minds. You don't like the Realms protrayed in 4E, I get that and respect that. But I don't agree with that. Lets just have by-gones be by-gones eh?
The designers said outright, they disliked the realms and really knew very little about it. And they were far to lazy to read the 3e books, much less read the older books or ya know call up and ask ed.So they just made stuff up and used names and history from another setting to make a whole new setting.
Again, I'm rather sure Rich Baker didn't outright say any of those things and Ed was on board with a lot of the decision making for 4E. Really, you should go to Candlekeep and ask Ed some questins about it and he'll be happy to share them. And while 3E books present a lot of Mechanical information, the Lore is really the best when looked at 2E material. As for history and ideas from another setting.....you've not noticed the strong comparions to many of Faerûn's regions and regions here on Earth? Maztica = Mezo-America, Unther/Mulhorandi = Egypt, Cormyr = Medieval Europe, Kara-Tur = many Eastern Cultures, Rasheman = Russia/Eastern Europe, etc....so yea some of that integration didn't immerse myself into Faerûn but made me feel like I was adventuring on Earth. Returned Abier, completly created by Ed Greenwood and completly original to th scope of the setting.
So, in reality, it feels to you as the designers made up names and took history from another setting. Or that the designers of the Realms disliked the setting to begin with. It's ok if that's the way you've interpreted and it feels to you, it but it's hardly fact.
On lore I meant two very unchanging things. 1: the god of magic can cut off any magic user or any magic at will, even gods and all gods know this. She has those chosen as "restrictions" is all. So no god can "ambush" her in her place of ultimate power.
2: with no god of magic, magic does not go dead, it stops. Period.No wild magic, no normal magic, nothing.
Abier was never part of the setting, never, not once. It was a name placed on the from of toil for the soul purpose of allowing to to be the first entry in the index. That is it. A whole new thing, new setting, just reusing names.I played FR for 16 years, I had a vast collection of FR items ( volo guides rocked BTW) and I am telling you. The folks involved made changes that have been ruled as not working in that setting since the 1e days.
The world simply did not work that way.
Also yes, the designers did say things of that nature, it was one of the early pod casts, they were joking and laughing about not knowing what things meant, (things spelled out and detailed in the 3.0 FRCS), about never being a fan of the setting, or having far to much lore.And I was on candlekeep in the early days of the changes and so was Ed, and all Ed said was, it may not have been what he would have done, and he was not consulted but they owned it so could do what they wanted. He had no say in the matter.
Maybe he changed his tune since then. I don't know, but as a freelancer he has to kinda walk a line there.I have not been to candle keep since the height of the wiki-wars. To much edition warring even for me.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
[stirring pot]
So a big part of the current talk about 5e on this and other forums is spawned from the recent news of Monte Cook coming on board at WotC.
Here is his first blog entry on WotC site, showing more of his role and what he's messing around with. In this case it's perception!
[/stirring pot]
See! They're already stealing from Pathfinder! They're replacing Spot and Listen with Perception!
[stirrs more]
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I did and I've never really found any resources that say Earth had gates and portals opened to Faerûn or that there was a connection between the two. One mention of this, found in the Grand History of the Realms, mentions Elminster meeting Ed Greenwood but I really thought that was thrown in for fun.Did you read the asterix? (my spoilered note, not the comic).
That's the backstory I'm talking about. This 'other planet swapping' thing was a 4e artifact.
Ok, wanted to make sure I was reading your reply to the right part of my reply. :-)
Agreed with the characters being axed. Though I didn't read that the Fey'ri were totally wiped out. Sure, the elves retake Myth Drannor ('bout damn time too!) but Saria's army disbanded, and they fled not totally evaporated. So I'm farily certain there are Fey'ri still running about the Realms.
Oh if I ever run the Realms again (where Halurra is still a country, and the Spellplauge was a bout of Dyslexia) there will be fey're around.
There are a lot of things I like from WotC, and wish were OGL (fey're, Warforged, Duskblade, Changlings, etc etc) sure I can use them in my home game, but I can't do (write) anything with them. If I do, I have to come up with my own "close enough if you squint, but not if you sue" stats. *sigh* wouldacouldashoulda.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
On lore I meant two very unchanging things. 1: the god of magic can cut off any magic user or any magic at will, even gods and all gods know this. She has those chosen as "restrictions" is all. So no god can "ambush" her in her place of ultimate power.
2: with no god of magic, magic does not go dead, it stops. Period.No wild magic, no normal magic, nothing.
3. and even if you kill the god of magic, he gets better. (Mystrul to Mystra to Midnight) :-)
I was under the impression (no sources, sorry) that Ed Greenwood decided that working in the 4gotten Realms would be the best way to 'steer the beast' Kind of like Gail on Batgirl.
In fact, if I remember correctly 'Ed's Realms' (the home game he runs) doesn't even mess with anything starting with the GodsWar.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wanted to add one thing to the speculations...
A lot of these people (meaning Paizo + WotC types) are friends It's not like Monte working for WotC went something like this.
Lisa: What are we going to do tonight, Monte?
Monte: The same thing we do every night, Lisa. Try to destroy WotC!
*WotC Commandos* sneak up on Monte and drop a helm of opposite alignment on his head.
WotBro Exec: NOW what are we going to do tonight Monte?
Evil Monte: Crush the competition, drive their market share before them, and hear the lamentations of their fanbase!
There may be rivalries, there may be competition between the two companies, but we won't see Lisa and Vic lead a band of Pathfinder Goblins to burn down Redmond* any time soon.
*
3. and even if you kill the god of magic, he gets better. (Mystrul to Mystra to Midnight) :-)
Yes, every thing written pre 4e says the very same thing. The god of magic IS the weave, she/he is the interface and controller. Without a god of magic you have no weave, without the weave you have no magic.The weave itself, brings back the god. It needs an interface, a controller, a CPU so to speak. You can not have one and not the other.
The weave is not a interface for magic, it is magic, raw untamed pure magic. No weave=No magic.
In fact, if I remember correctly 'Ed's Realms' (the home game he runs) doesn't even mess with anything starting with the GodsWar.
You are absolutely right, good sir:
Interview with the man himself here
I've never gone with the whole big metaplotty realms thing myself, though I dearly love the setting and gleefully mix 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition product ideas, spells, items, etc together. Of course, some Golarion setting stuff has also worked its way in, now too...
|
We really, really, really are tired of the edition war nonsense. Play the games you want to play, and don't denigrate others because of their preferred game system.
And my reply to this is "why can't we express" our preference and why it is so?
Of course the same arguments might have comes countless times since PF day one but why denying people their opinion even if it's pure nonsense?Don't forget that the jobe YOU actualy have AND the position Paizo is IN is directly linked to the fact that LOOOOOOOTS of peoples have actualy taken a firm stand in that edition war... wich is YOUR side!
My 2 cents
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We really, really, really are tired of the edition war nonsense. Play the games you want to play, and don't denigrate others because of their preferred game system.And my reply to this is "why can't we express" our preference and why it is so?
Of course the same arguments might have comes countless times since PF day one but why denying people their opinion even if it's pure nonsense?Don't forget that the jobe YOU actualy have AND the position Paizo is IN is directly linked to the fact that LOOOOOOOTS of peoples have actualy taken a firm stand in that edition war... wich is YOUR side!
My 2 cents
[paranoid speculation]Because Pathfinder 2e will be 4e![/paranoid speculation]
Whew, here in reality...
The first rule of the Paizo boards is basically 'don't be a Richard'. It is possible to support your favourite system here. I'd point out in this thread alone we've had people explaining why they prefer 4e, 3e, BECMI etc. Heck I mentioned I still love Marvel Super Heroes with the universal tables!
There's a difference between 'expressing your support' and 'running the other guy down'. I can say "I like the Pathfinder Skill system, and would hope WotC takes a good look at it for a 5e" But if I say "4e's challenges are stupid and you're a doo-doo head if you like them!" I shouldn't be surprised if my post gets deleted.*
So don't be a Richard, be polite, and we'll all get along.**
*
**
There may be rivalries, there may be competition between the two companies, but we won't see Lisa and Vic lead a band of Pathfinder Goblins to burn down Redmond* any time soon.
Because they wouldn't want to burn their own offices, there's some pretty nice art in there!
Whew, here in reality...The first rule of the Paizo boards is basically 'don't be a Richard'.
"Wait! You mean I can't randomly Murder people, eat Gnomes and burn down villages?"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I say good sir, I can be nothing BUT a Richard!
|
|
I think the days of producing gaming modules and supplements as a labour of love for the D&D brand are long gone, it started with the release of 3.5e even though that was the edition i got back into FRP with!!...The D&D brand is now a money juggernaut filling the coffers of the Hasbro Board of Directors.
Every company including this one wants to make a profit. Paizo is no different. Do you think they would lose any sleep if they made alot of money of course not. Unless of course you or anyone else knows of any non-profit rpg companies.