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!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?
Excellent! Then you didn't need to comment on my capitalism-related post.
[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]
Rolling Spot and Listen into a single Perception skill is one of the changes Pathfinder RPG made to 3.5e that I dislike. I think it is a case of faux parsimony... Nevertheless, I should point out that IIRC 4e has also combined these two skills into Perception.
As to the resolution/skill system being proposed in the Legends & Lore articles, on the one hand I like it, but on the other hand I am a bit bitter, since I had designed a rather similar (there are differences, but the basic principle is similar) resolution/skill system for the RPG system I am working on myself, and now it will no longer be so original, plus it brings up questions if I want to publish it in the future. :(
Should Paizo release a 2nd edition of the PFRPG to compete for novelty value? No, they'll just annoy existing players that way.I dunno. They are kinda doing this with the beginner's box. While not a second edition per say it will be a trimmed down version of the PFRPG from the way I understand it.
It's not a replacement for the existing game, though, it supplements it. In that respect, it's not a new edition at all.
Paizo's biggest strength is the quality of their setting and adventures.
Agreed, and they will stick with the rules that let them sell said adventures.
I don't think they are actively looking for a replacement edition. They are looking to improve their system where it needs improvement. That may or may not warrant a new edition.
I think personally they are looking to improve their market standing and their balance sheet, simple as. The fact that they are now vying for dominance of the market with Paizo is not where they wanted to be with 4e.
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'm going to respectfully disagree here, for a number of reasons: I know teenagers (and younger) playing Pathfinder, and I know they enjoy getting together, sitting down, playing and everything else. They love MMORPGs as well, and tactical games, and all the rest. What makes my Sunday Pathfinder game unique is the level of social interaction we all get out of it.
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.
They've completely missed the point if they do that - Paizo's strengths are the OGL that lets 3PPs participate, and the Adventure Paths. If WotC go back to the 3.5 engine, then they will just alienate everyone who went to 4e, and win back none that went to Pathfinder. What they need to do to fight on Paizo's turf is improve on the customer care and on the support for adventures - the secret to Paizo's success is NOT the particular ruleset, save in that it is on an open licence.
You see, even if WotC release the ultimate D&D which appeals to everyone, and place it on an OGL that wipes out the current OGL by being more accessible and more awesome, they won't hurt Paizo - because Paizo will simply release adventures for that new system.
WotC have yet to realise that once you have the rules, you don't need to buy more, but as long as you play you will need more good adventures.
That only applies to gods who rely on magic. Cyric was/is the ultimte assasin. who proved to every mage everywhere that no mage is immune to a well-placed knife in the back, especially when the killer was once a friend. Cyric did not rely on magic to kill the Midnight-Mystra he did it with his skill as a cold-blooded killer. And she simply did not have a god's centuries, millennia, of experience in protecting herself, being newly ascended herself.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.
Yeah, not buying it. First off they said Shar used magic to get him into mystara's home ground, even shadow weave, you do not think she would have felt that in the heart of her power? the place was constructed of the weave, it was a place of raw power. Secondly every god is powered by magic, they are magic, they can't even grant spells to their clerics if she cuts them off. and lastly a knife, even one used buy a god can not kill a true god at full power. Gods in FR do not die that easy, much less the most powerful god in her own realm. She wasn't an avatar, she was the god herself, at the heart of her realm, where she had the whole of the weave to dip into. as long as the weave was in working order she simply could not have been even damaged by a less powerful god. He simply did not have the power to do so.
I disagree, name one, Just one god who was killed at full power by a god much less powerful them them. He killed mortal avatars of gods, all mortal, she was not mortal and was not really midnight any more then the myastra who took over for mystral was still the mortal Mystara.
That is one of the major weak points in the whole thing, you can't simply slay a god that easy, not even in FR. Much less a god who had so much power she had to store the over flow in mortals. One who could strip other gods of ever magical, mystical power they had, one who could strip any and all magic away from an artifact at will.
He simply did not have the power to harm her
All these editons of Dungeons and Dragons is getting out of hand. I am sick of buying a new edition and then having the book for a year or two and the next thing I know they are putting out the next edition. They are milking Dungeons and Dragons to death and also killing it at the same time by watering it down and altering more and more year after year. Sometimes I wonder if these companies are interested in building up on their product or do they just want to suck money out of one's pocket? If they keep doing this I will retire from playing "The World's Oldest RPG" because Im sick of having to start over with a new edition every other year.
[
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.
Fair enough. Those resources were just stories or ecologies written by
'elminster' in early issues of dragons in the 80's.They did occur several times though. But yes as far as I can remember, the Grand History is the only link.
No wait! Forgot the Mulhorand. It was STRONGLY eluded to that Mulhorandi were actual Egyptians. I never played it this way. I played that the Egyptian Gods just found the realms.
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.
Rich Baker knew the realms very well. It was not HIM that said it, but I distinctly remember the incident where the designers said they did not know it well.
I also was on candlekeep up until the 4e realms, and Ed Greenwood did indeed say what you elude to above. In fact he mentions the realms for 4e are great but not what I (Ed) would have done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will also not support a company like WOTC who requires the purchase of 4 $30.00 dollar books just to have a complete Player's Handbook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will also not support a company like WOTC who requires the purchase of 4 $30.00 dollar books just to have a complete Player's Handbook.
...
A player only needs to buy 1 $30 PHB to play D&D 4E. The GM may want a DMG and a monster manual. Or are you still complaining because they chose to put tieflings in the main book instead of gnomes?
That's like complaining that you have to buy 3 books in order to have a Magus, Alchemist, and a Wizard in the same party in Pathfinder.
Hey, If we 5E was a simplified version of 3.x with "optional rules" and classes similar to many different editions to keep players happy. I would strongly consider it.
Though I would like to see Zeb Cook instead of Monte (though I do like Monte alot too), and Jeff Grubb. Maybe they should rehire a few people from many different era's of dnd to get the feel right. Some Zeb Cook thrown in with Monte Cook, with Jeff Grubb and Frank Mentzer. Maybe a litte Len Lakofka, etc. That would definitely spike my interest. But I am too much a junky of earlier editions.
|
The companies that struggle to maintain product loyalty and not brand loyalty cannot compete, financially, with this marketing strategy. You, the gamer with a fixed income, perhaps in your late teens early twenties (and a few of us in our late forties) spend money on the games we like, the game products we really want to use, the materials that keep us interested in our hobby, but when the electric bill is a little too high, or the brake pads need to be replaced, we don’t buy games.
The industry knows this, and they do not market to us.
Games and game related products are marketed to new customers, young people who do not have their own income, but who will ask their parents to buy them things, and in our culture today parents will buy things for their children before they will spend money on themselves or even on things they should. The industry knows this – and that is why they market new products every two to three years. Two to three years is the time from age 12 or 13 to the age of 15 or 16, that is the market. That is what Hasbro develops products for, that is where...
Did you even read what you wrote? Its both true and false. AS a parent of a pair of kids, yes I will buy things for them before myself.
But at the same time, were the adults electric bill is too high or the wife's car needs brakes, yes I would cut back. But at the same time....SO WILL THE PARENTS OF KIDS THEIR MARKETING. If harry and jane's car drive shaft drops out the bottom of the car, yes money wont get spent on their gaming products that they want from WOTC or Paizo that month. But if julie and mike's darling little boy wants the latest WOTC and Paizo product and the drive shaft drops out of the car.....well their darling little boy is getting those products either.
Its teh flaw in your view, and various game companies like WOTC and Games workshop among others. Yes if real life's bills get too high, we will cut back. But that also goes for those 13 year old parents their targeting.......
I will also not support a company like WOTC who requires the purchase of 4 $30.00 dollar books just to have a complete Player's Handbook....
A player only needs to buy 1 $30 PHB to play D&D 4E. The GM may want a DMG and a monster manual. Or are you still complaining because they chose to put tieflings in the main book instead of gnomes?
That's like complaining that you have to buy 3 books in order to have a Magus, Alchemist, and a Wizard in the same party in Pathfinder.
It's a little different for pathfinder; you can get those classes for free off the internet, from the SRD.
It's the adventures you pay n' pay n' pay for.
I will also not support a company like WOTC who requires the purchase of 4 $30.00 dollar books just to have a complete Player's Handbook....
A player only needs to buy 1 $30 PHB to play D&D 4E. The GM may want a DMG and a monster manual. Or are you still complaining because they chose to put tieflings in the main book instead of gnomes?
That's like complaining that you have to buy 3 books in order to have a Magus, Alchemist, and a Wizard in the same party in Pathfinder.
It's a little different for pathfinder; you can get those classes for free off the internet, from the SRD.
It's the adventures you pay n' pay n' pay for.
But that wasn't the complaint. The implication was the game was "incomplete" unless you purchased many supplements. This is totally false. You can play 4E with the same number of core books as 1E, 2E, and 3E. What came in those books, particularly when it comes to race and classes, but that's a design choice.
Or are you mad at those money grubbers at T$R for leaving Barbarians and Half-Orcs out of the AD&D Player's Handbook?
I will also not support a company like WOTC who requires the purchase of 4 $30.00 dollar books just to have a complete Player's Handbook....
A player only needs to buy 1 $30 PHB to play D&D 4E. The GM may want a DMG and a monster manual. Or are you still complaining because they chose to put tieflings in the main book instead of gnomes?
That's like complaining that you have to buy 3 books in order to have a Magus, Alchemist, and a Wizard in the same party in Pathfinder.
It's a little different for pathfinder; you can get those classes for free off the internet, from the SRD.
It's the adventures you pay n' pay n' pay for.
But that wasn't the complaint. The implication was the game was "incomplete" unless you purchased many supplements. This is totally false. You can play 4E with the same number of core books as 1E, 2E, and 3E. What came in those books, particularly when it comes to race and classes, but that's a design choice.
I don't disagree; you can play 4th edition just fine with the PHB, DMG and MM1. I was simply noting that the Pathfinder approach was a bit different, in that all classes are available online without paying for access.
Or are you mad at those money grubbers at T$R for leaving Barbarians and Half-Orcs out of the AD&D Player's Handbook?
Not sure about this statement? Weren't Barbs and Half Orcs in the 1st edition PHB? They were in mine.
But that wasn't the complaint. The implication was the game was "incomplete" unless you purchased many supplements. This is totally false. You can play 4E with the same number of core books as 1E, 2E, and 3E. What came in those books, particularly when it comes to race and classes, but that's a design choice.Or are you mad at those money grubbers at T$R for leaving Barbarians and Half-Orcs out of the AD&D Player's Handbook?
Half orcs were in the AD&D players handbook. Barbarians were not because they were not developed yet. Just a point.
With that said the 4e PH is incomplete. Pathfinder Core rules is not as those classes were not yet developed.
But yes in order to play all classes you would need the Pathfinder core through ultimate combat.
Half orcs were in the AD&D players handbook. Barbarians were not because they were not developed yet. Just a point.
But that wasn't the complaint. The implication was the game was "incomplete" unless you purchased many supplements. This is totally false. You can play 4E with the same number of core books as 1E, 2E, and 3E. What came in those books, particularly when it comes to race and classes, but that's a design choice.Or are you mad at those money grubbers at T$R for leaving Barbarians and Half-Orcs out of the AD&D Player's Handbook?
I stand corrected; no Barbs in the 1st ed PHB. I guess they were introduced in unearthed arcana. Ooops!
But yes in order to play all classes you would need the Pathfinder core through ultimate combat.
Available .... online, and for free, right?
One thing is for sure about the Pathfinder books. You get more of your moneys worth with them than those skinny 4th edition books.
Half orcs were in the AD&D players handbook. Barbarians were not because they were not developed yet. Just a point.
With that said the 4e PH is incomplete. Pathfinder Core rules is not as those classes were not yet developed.
But yes in order to play all classes you would need the Pathfinder core through ultimate combat.
That's what I get for not double-checking. When I play old-school these days I prefer the Rules Cyclopedia.
I still disagree that the 4E PHB is incomplete. You can play just as many race/class combinations as earlier editions. They just chose to put a different mix in. You can play the game with no trouble using just a core set.
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.*
*** spoiler omitted **
I lost interest in the novels, over time (I think I read the Time of Troubles series (or some of it anyhow) when it came out, but that was the last bit of canon I was at all familiar with), so I was not invested in the state of play in 3.5. By then, I had gone right back to the grey box (plus FR1 from memory - the Waterdeep and the North supplement).
Having said that - I'm of the view that I'm in a significant minority. I presume that WoTC were caught off-guard by the resistance to such a fundamental and abrupt re-write. I think what this episode showed, if anything, was just how passionately people feel about their campaign settings. Eberron was subsequently updated with pretty much zero change (as far as I can see anyhow - I use my 3.5 sourcebooks for flavor material).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Puts on chicken suit
*The sky is falling the sky is falling!*
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Eberron was subsequently updated with pretty much zero change (as far as I can see anyhow - I use my 3.5 sourcebooks for flavor material).
I think they just did a 5 year 'timeline jump' to explain all the new shiny bits that popped in, rather than a century.
That said I do remember a larger original jump was planned, just don't remember how long.
|
|
I admit it is not as simple as all that, and I am no expert in ecconomics, but I disagree with you, just a little bit, only as far as my opinion counts.
I believe that parents (I have 4 grown children, and one grandchild on the way) in our culture (America) today will justify spending money on their children before spending it on themselves in times where money is tight. It seems to me that our society today (people my age at least) kind of have a sort of 'guilty' conscious. We want our children to have things as nice as we remember we had ( growing up in the 70's wasn't all that bad, really) and so we tend to use purchase of goods as a way to show our children we love them (it is, in my opinion a byproduct of the culture of narcissism, see the book by Christopher Lasch).
But yes you have a valid point, and mostly I am just spouting of things I believe about the world, not things I really have a good understanding of.
Your repeating yourself. And nothing that is new.
Would I buy my kid teh DVD or toy or CD they really really want, before I buy myself the tomb of horror revised for pathfinder? Absolutely.
Would I buy the kids stuff ahead of an overdue electric bill or instead of brakes for the car? Hell no. No responsible parent is going to drive around to and from work, or put kids in the car and not get teh brakes fixed so they can buy their wee ones something they want, or risk termination of electricity to buy some crap the kid wants. Hell no.
So....would parents in general put the kids wants before their own gaming wants? Yes.
Would parents put emergency or very important bills ahead of kids wants? Hell no.
I get that Games workshop or WOTC is targeting tweens and teens now instead of the adults that got them to the successful point they are now. However, I totally disagree that those kids have more disposable income then adults without children- you have 4 grown kids, you KNOW all the money you spent on kids stuff growing up- clothes, shoes, food, various extracaricular activities like sports, band, dance, etc.... That all adds up in the end.
Rich Baker knew the realms very well. It was not HIM that said it, but I distinctly remember the incident where the designers said they did not know it well.
I also was on candlekeep up until the 4e realms, and Ed Greenwood did indeed say what you elude to above. In fact he mentions the realms for 4e are great but not what I (Ed) would have done.
Glad someone else recalls that.
I think they just did a 5 year 'timeline jump' to explain all the new shiny bits that popped in, rather than a century.
That said I do remember a larger original jump was planned, just don't remember how long.
I do not think they did a big time jump, I have not read the 4e book, but from talking with folks who only have played or read the 4e books. I know they made enough changes to the background that I confused the hell out of em quoted word for word the 3e book.
I do not think they did a big time jump, I have not read the 4e book, but from talking with folks who only have played or read the 4e books. I know they made enough changes to the background that I confused the hell out of em quoted word for word the 3e book.
Really? I'm no canon-guru, but I've just kept using the 3.5 sourcebooks and timeline without noticing any conflict. I thought they'd adjusted their approach based on FR feedback and just ported the rules over, leaving the flavor material as unchanged as possible.
Really? I'm no canon-guru, but I've just kept using the 3.5 sourcebooks and timeline without noticing any conflict. I thought they'd adjusted their approach based on FR feedback and just ported the rules over, leaving the flavor material as unchanged as possible.
It was mostly plane set up and some of the history that got changed to fit the 4e set up. why I have no clue, but they forced it to fit into the 4e set up from what I heard. I really can't recall what all it was really. But I got into a pretty confusing argument with a few of em before I figed out they were using 4e cannon and that it was not the same as that in the 3.5 ECS.
|
|
Essentials are not the focal point of learning...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.
Sorry...I was rushed while writing...that part work with the next passage of mine quoted. It is not about "Essential" but 4e in general.
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).
Ugh. Seriously I should not start posting when I need to leave for work.
We agree for the most part. I do not see that there is any difference in 4e PHB and PF CRB. You need to take this quote and read it with the next quote. It is the size of the CRB that is daunting. But if a player takes their time and reads thoroughly with comprehension both books yield exactly what teh reader needs to play the game with good fluency.
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...
It is the amount of times that people would venture in to ask the same question...something that is explained...and even can be considered obvious, but the readers were in too much of a rush (no patience) and did not read it thoroughly (less comprehension) and so were not able to figure out such a simple but integral thing to the 4e system.
To me, it is not the book that causes the issues with learning a game, it is the effort (or lack of) used by the reader.
We agree for the most part. I do not see that there is any difference in 4e PHB and PF CRB. You need to take this quote and read it with the next quote. It is the size of the CRB that is daunting. But if a player takes their time and reads thoroughly with comprehension both books yield exactly what teh reader needs to play the game with good fluency.
...
To me, it is not the book that causes the issues with learning a game, it is the effort (or lack of) used by the reader.
Perhaps we're seeing the same thing from differing perspectives. I've tried to teach non-RPGers to play Pathfinder and it's been very hard to get them even engaged. The initial reaction (even though I didnt give them the actual book unless they asked for it) was astonishment at the number of rules and skepticism that the effort in learning how to play was going to be worth it. I've had a similar, though less pronounced, experience with the 4th edition PH and in contrast, essentials seems much less threatening than both. I'm hoping that the beginner's set will perform as admirably.
I agree with you that everything you need is there in the PF core rules and also that it's possible to work your way through the PH and miss something. Nonetheless, in my opinion the first impression counts for a lot. As RPGers we're used to the concept of buying half a dozen books in order to play a game of make believe - that concept itself is quite baffling to non-gamers, in my experience.
I can fully understand people for whom 4th edition is not their thing - I was surprised at the prospect that someone may have thought it was less newbie-friendly than Pathfiner though. I really struggle to understand this view (not as in 'some bits are missing from PFCRB', just wrt the impression it makes on non-gamers).
Perhaps we're seeing the same thing from differing perspectives. I've tried to teach non-RPGers to play Pathfinder and it's been very hard to get them even engaged. The initial reaction (even though I didnt give them the actual book unless they asked for it) was astonishment at the number of rules and skepticism that the effort in learning how to play was going to be worth it. I've had a similar, though less pronounced, experience with the 4th edition PH and in contrast, essentials seems much less threatening than both. I'm hoping that the beginner's set will perform as admirably.
We had such "newb" friendly intros back in the day. They were called HeroQuest and Dragon Strike board games. Once you got done with playing with little plastic figures and set characters you transitioned to a more robust system like AD&D.
This why I raised an eyebrow at the "make it new player friendly" design philosophy. Ultimately, like Essentials, if you want to bring new players on board you start them on the Board Game end of things and then provide them a path into complexity.
Let me do a modern example. While Descent: Journeys in the Dark can be quite brutal it is a Board Game with the basic elements need. Enter the Campaign expansions, now you have the idea of an on going game with the same characters and longer term goals. Use the optional character building rules. The next step after that is the introduction of Skills and other rules to fill out how characters interact with the world.
This goes ditto for the DMs introduction to the game. The "Board Game" opening should give the DM the background he/she needs to eventual plan, run, and adjudicate a successful game.
We had such "newb" friendly intros back in the day. They were called HeroQuest and Dragon Strike board games. Once you got done with playing with little plastic figures and set characters you transitioned to a more robust system like AD&D.
This why I raised an eyebrow at the "make it new player friendly" design philosophy. Ultimately, like Essentials, if you want to bring new players on board you start them on the Board Game end of things and then provide them a path into complexity.
Let me do a modern example. While Descent: Journeys in the Dark can be quite brutal it is a Board Game with the basic elements need. Enter the Campaign expansions, now you have the idea an on going game with the same characters and longer term goals. Use the optional character building rules. The next step after that is the introduction of Skills and other rules to fill out how characters interact with the world.
That would be one approach (I've never played any of those boardgames you mentioned, but it would make sense to me to teach someone via a boardgame, whilst gradually introducing roleplaying).
I don't think that's the only approach though. I also don't think the Essentials rules in particular emphasise the boardgame aspect of DnD. In fact I think it's less board-gamey than the initial 4th edition release (obviously nothing more than subjective judgement, but still).
I havent had a lot of experience teaching new players, when I do though I actually try to understate the similarity with boardgames. I think it's better to highlight the differences between 'usual' games and an RPG, rather than the similarities.
I havent had a lot of experience teaching new players, when I do though I actually try to understate the similarity with boardgames. I think it's better to highlight the differences between 'usual' games and an RPG, rather than the similarities.
I tend to go the other way. I first find out what kinds of games they've played. Board Games, Card Games, Computer Games. I then try to relate aspects of the Roleplaying Game to their existing experience. Even some Facebook games are fair game.
This is where a beginning with a Board Game is useful, especially if they have never played any games before. It creates a basic starting ground and expectations of how things work. I don't know about you, but I began without any "teacher" or even any knowledge of the greater roleplaying community. My group and I started with board games (as I mentioned) and transitioned to 2e AD&D (current edition at the time) when we wanted more then HeroQuest could offer. Also a good place to get the Monty Haul out.
For basic introduction to Skills and their use I'd point to the Ninja Burger non-collectable card game. Fairly simple but introduces non-combat concepts and the uses of "skills" to overcome challenges.
This is all pre-Roleplaying before it all gets combined into a more holistic game. Some folks don't need that level of introduction and have already gotten this from MMOs to one degree or another. Someone who plays and beats ElderScroll/Fallout or maybe even Fable, are more likely to pick up D&D or Pathfinder faster then someone who's only played FarmVille.
I should clarify, by board game I don't just mean figures on a board. I mean the whole simplified or limited choices (including choices of actions). Board games need to be quick and easy to understand, and hopefully setup/takedown (shakes fist at Descent). The fewer options a player has to deal with the quicker they are sucked into the play. However that can't be the end of it. Once they have the basics and want to do "more then board game allows" you need a place for them to go which can actually support everything they're asking for.
=====
To answer the question before it's asked. I did not pick 4e (detest it by in large) because it didn't seem to offer the full widget. Ignoring my disgruntlement with fluff choices, overall tone from developers, and IMO general piss-poor customer relations with us "old guard"; it's a well structured combat system. What I've come to expect from a game at D&D's end of the Board Game to Roleplaying spectrum is a level of environment interaction and a modicum of fidelity/simulation. I want a system that supports elements from spitting in the Kings face and taking his crown to... oh lets say owning and operating your own merchant caravan. These are the kinds of things that separate a Roleplaying game from HeroQuest with metric ton of character options and a touch of Ninja Burger skill resolution.
Could 4e support what I want out Roleplaying games? It very well could have. Did the 4e design crew go down that path? *looks around for kingdom running rules in 4e product line* Doesn't seem so though.
Can a hypothetical 5e D&D bring that back? I'm not sure. Personally I wouldn't trust Wizards at this point to stick with it. I'd trust Paizo through Pathfinder 2e even if it breaks many 3.5 and older mechanics because they've shown they can do more then just combine HeroQuest with Ninja Burger.
http://www.yeoldeinn.com/
The legacy to Agin's Inn
One of the best places to get caught up on some good s***.
... What if 5E had internal support for MLP... Completely Random, but just throwing that thought out there.
4E lacked the rules for kingdoms and caravans simply because it tried to move all this to narrative. It gave rules for combat and for what should be ballanced out of combat and let the rest to be just a story in the background.
In theory if you travelled with a caravan or started to crave your own kingdom out of wilderness it should have netted something like WBL amount of money and generated encounters like a normal dungeon would, just in a different context.
You decide to make a tournament to attract peole - skill challenge, Bandits move in - combat encounter, an angry crowd gathers to make you lower the taxes - skill challenge to appease them, strangely prolonged drought approaches - a serie of various encounters to find and beat the cr@& out of the source. You don't receive the gold for questing from the major of the town, but rather in form of the continued tax flow (that would cease if you failed simply because the bandits would steal it there would be no harvest and so on). Players with GM just generate the events an it rolls forth. No "Ye Olde Magick Shoppe" You hire someone to make the item for you and... surprisingly it would cost you... *insert market value*.
For caravans it would be similar. Events with terrain more often containing the vagons than in other compaigns, but otherwise pretty similar with WBL generated by trade you do in different cities, bringing more and more outlandish goods as your ability to get such things grows with level (occasinal tomb plunder, raiding rival traders perhaps). Different sort of events, but all approached through the same mechanics - Combat, Skill Challenge, Building the Encounter and Distributing Rewards.
3E has a lot of different mechanics that makes it all more complicated and perhaps also varied, 4E tries to roll it under one set of mechanics. It demands of the players to be more interested in the story variation and describing their actions, because the mechanics don't change and the game doesn't reward it much aside from +2/-2 to roll from the DM. It may be positive because it all will pretty easily be remembered after a few plays, but it can get old as well if you keep seeing the mechanics behind it continuously.
I havent had a lot of experience teaching new players, when I do though I actually try to understate the similarity with boardgames. I think it's better to highlight the differences between 'usual' games and an RPG, rather than the similarities.I tend to go the other way. I first find out what kinds of games they've played. Board Games, Card Games, Computer Games. I then try to relate aspects of the Roleplaying Game to their existing experience. Even some Facebook games are fair game.
This is where a beginning with a Board Game is useful, especially if they have never played any games before. It creates a basic starting ground and expectations of how things work. I don't know about you, but I began without any "teacher" or even any knowledge of the greater roleplaying community. My group and I started with board games (as I mentioned) and transitioned to 2e AD&D (current edition at the time) when we wanted more then HeroQuest could offer. Also a good place to get the Monty Haul out.
For basic introduction to Skills and their use I'd point to the Ninja Burger non-collectable card game. Fairly simple but introduces non-combat concepts and the uses of "skills" to overcome challenges.
This is all pre-Roleplaying before it all gets combined into a more holistic game. Some folks don't need that level of introduction and have already gotten this from MMOs to one degree or another. Someone who plays and beats ElderScroll/Fallout or maybe even Fable, are more likely to pick up D&D or Pathfinder faster then someone who's only played FarmVille.
I should clarify, by board game I don't just mean figures on a board. I mean the whole simplified or limited choices (including choices of actions). Board games need to be quick and easy to understand, and hopefully setup/takedown (shakes fist at Descent). The fewer options a player has to deal with the quicker they are sucked into the play. However that can't be the end of it. Once they have the basics and want to do "more...
My experience in learning the game was the reverse - no doubt that has something to do with our differing approaches to teaching the game. I didnt play any boardgames until after I was a pretty regular roleplayer and I never played the ones you mentioned (I think I tried heroquest once and maybe something called talisman? Which were supposed to be RPG-ey, but they never held my interest).
As for the simulationist approach - I would strongly encourage anyone for whom that is an important facet of their game to steer clear of 4th edition. You can add on the kind of mechanics you're looking for (I'm currently conveting Kingmaker to 4th edition and it's a breeze) but it will always, at it's heart, be a game which involves telling a story, not replicating a world. I can see why you wouldnt have enjoyed it - it's a completely different mindset and there's no point struggling to fit a square peg in a round hole, in my view.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm. Speculation is fun.
I don't see Hasbro reaching deep into their coffers for their D&D brand anytime in the next several years.
I make this claim because Hasbro quarterly and annual reports treat the D&D brand like a red-headed stepchild (it's mentioned AFTER Duelmasters even!).
Hasbro explicitly states their new strategy is focusing on only a few of the brands and maximizing their synergy (ala Transformers movies and TV shows driving toy/game sales) OR introducing them to new, unsaturated emerging markets. When you have a top level corporate mantra being drummed like this, it's hard to get buy-in to any proposal that isn't 100% aligned (like a new edition launch).
2012 is all about Battleship and Beyblade. 2013 I bet Transformers and/or GI Goe again. They'd probably do a Monopoly movie/cartoon series ahead of D&D!
I'd guess this actually put the team that works on D&D in a dangerous position. In fact, their jobs are likely LESS secure than a Paizo employee. The brand has more value in a single sale to some crazy investor group pining over their nostalgic youth that it will generate in revenue. The D&D brand is one of the most likely assets they'd jettison to boost a revenue to hit a target they're about miss - say like 2012 when Battleship sinks? .. or perhaps 2014 when the Littlest Pet Shop movie (a random half-joke guess) doesn't live up to promise?.
Launching a new edition would be a major marketing expense on top of the R&D expense - they wouldn't do it frugally with start-up panache.
They're also probably dealing with backlash on launching new editions of classic products not living up to growth projections (from D&D's new online elements to the crazy new-fangled Monopoly). I imagine there's some Powerpoint chart(s) that have predicted huge improvements in the reach of the D&D brand (say a 5X-10X increase) based on "inclusion of MMO and online elements that will appeal to the current and future generations."
Anyway, summing up this guess...
With the steam running out of 4e, we don't see a 5e launch because it ends up timed with some year when Transformers/GI Joe steam has truly exhausted (and 2 other properties bombed) and the company is feeling tentative about new projects.
Yet..
We get lucky that someone with passion for the brand picks it up and reboots it! Or we see something tragic because it's a company like EA that put out the highest bid for the rights :(
|
|
I'd guess this actually put the team that works on D&D in a dangerous position. In fact, their jobs are likely LESS secure than a Paizo employee. The brand has more value in a single sale to some crazy investor group pining over their nostalgic youth that it will generate in revenue. The D&D brand is one of the most likely assets they'd jettison to boost a revenue to hit a target they're about miss - say like 2012 when Battleship sinks? .. or perhaps 2014 when the Littlest Pet Shop movie (a random half-joke guess) doesn't live up to promise?.
...snip...
Hasbro don't sell brands they have developed or acquired.
They mothball and then renew.
Not that it is very encouraging to the dnd staff, but it is different to how you suggest.
Really? I'm no canon-guru, but I've just kept using the 3.5 sourcebooks and timeline without noticing any conflict. I thought they'd adjusted their approach based on FR feedback and just ported the rules over, leaving the flavor material as unchanged as possible.
I am a Canon Guru for FR. NO. They did not change any previous edition canon, that is correct. All that stuff still happened.
It is not what was rewritten, it was the direction. The 4e Canon was arbitrarily rewritten in most places, using the spellplague as an excuse.
So YES, the realms I used to play in is still there. This however does not matter if I am to invest in current products. In order to enjoy support of the realms, I have to now play in a world that only resembles the realms in outline form. The story that has been built up for years has been rebooted, and everything has changed.
About the only place there is No conflict is Cormyr. Just about everywhere else was reshaped.
Some places that people used to run campaigns in are now besodden realms provided for the aquatic adventure motif. The Moonshaes was completely transformed into fey.
And you know, if they released a NEW world with all of these areas, I would say OK they made a comletely FANTASTICAL world to play in.
Instead they took an established world, and changed it to 'this new idea I have.' I had faith because Rich Baker was leading the charge. However I think he got lost up in the fervor of change, that many squeaky wheels on the internet wanted changed.
There are old fans that like the new realms. I still think for this particular world WOTC made a gamble and it failed.
In general, I think the older fans that accepted the world change were very happy with 4e when it was released. These seem to be the people that think the change is OK.
The other people that think the change is OK, are people that did not like the realms before. They had no skin in the game so they did not care about the changes.
Then there were people Like me, that though I did not like 4e, I would most likely have used it as my home system because the FR was being supported by it. I am a support guy. I like looking forward to new releases for me to read and digest. I am well aware I could just keep the old realms, but I wanted updates, because it is fun. So I don't want to hear any of those arguments about I still had old realms.
When I saw that the Forgotten Realms was no longer the world I recognized, that was a pretty solid message, confirming the 4e ruleset was not for me. I decided to move on, and play Warhammer FRP, and 3rd edition.
Then Pathfinder is released, and I can still play the FR with a rules system I thought was better than 3rd edition. Then I explored Golarion.
I don't care what WOTC does at this point with the D&D brand as I am no longer invested in it. If they released nice FR aniversary products I would probably buy them provided they were not the new vision of the realms.
I am a Canon Guru for FR. NO. They did not change any previous edition canon, that is correct. All that stuff still happened.
Which is a good thing as it promotes continunity. But remember that just because it's written in a book somewhere doens't mean 100% that it's correct. Keep in mind that a lot of FR canon is based on people's perception and understanding of their own world. That's not to say that other interpretations are wrong or incorrect, just a different take on the events that happened there-in.
It is not what was rewritten, it was the direction. The 4e Canon was arbitrarily rewritten in most places, using the spellplague as an excuse.So YES, the realms I used to play in is still there. This however does not matter if I am to invest in current products. In order to enjoy support of the realms, I have to now play in a world that only resembles the realms in outline form. The story that has been built up for years has been rebooted, and everything has changed.
That's hog-wash. I know and talk to people who play using 4E mechanics and still adventure in 1375 DR Realms with NOTHING changing the facts of game mechanics. You don't have to change a darn thing and there are a lot of ideas in 4E FR that are really compelling such as Returned Abier (which could be used to describe just another continent of Faerûn) or the Company with the flying ships (I'm AFB right now so I can't reference the page or name, sorry). It's what you make it, not what the designers make it. Look at it as a huge list of ideas that you can pull and plug into your own Realms.
About the only place there is No conflict is Cormyr. Just about everywhere else was reshaped.Some places that people used to run campaigns in are now besodden realms provided for the aquatic adventure motif. The Moonshaes was completely transformed into fey.
And you know, if they released a NEW world with all of these areas, I would say OK they made a comletely FANTASTICAL world to play in.
Waterdeep saw relatively small changes, Baldur's Gate saw relatively small changes, Western Heartlands saw relatively small changes, The North saw relatively small change, Calimshan saw relatively small change, Moonsea saw relatively small change (ok they blew up Zhentil Keep, but it was sorta justified), Impiltur-Damara-Vaasa-Rasheman-Chult-Aglarond- ALL saw relatively small change. There were a few places, probably less than 25%, that were hugely re-shaped or changed in the setting. So yea, 'bout the same as in v3.5.
Instead they took an established world, and changed it to 'this new idea I have.' I had faith because Rich Baker was leading the charge. However I think he got lost up in the fervor of change, that many squeaky wheels on the internet wanted changed.There are old fans that like the new realms. I still think for this particular world WOTC made a gamble and it failed.
It's been my perspective that those who enjoy 4E are more or less ok with the changes to Forgotten Realms and thus enjoy the setting the same (if not more) than those who hate the 4E ruleset and thus, the 4E Forgotten Realms. I do agree that they probably didn't get the return in the setting that they wanted and lost a lot. The gains and lost, however, are probably relatively balanced IMO. LFR did a lot to get people involved with the Realms and bought those products. But the shift in this setting vs. that setting is pretty much gone except for grognards who claim "Warforged?! Not in MY REALMS!!" which is a really immature mentality towards a roleplaying game supplement.
In general, I think the older fans that accepted the world change were very happy with 4e when it was released. These seem to be the people that think the change is OK.The other people that think the change is OK, are people that did not like the realms before. They had no skin in the game so they did not care about the changes.
Sorry but that's a pretty big generalization about a specific group of people. I've been playing in the Realms since AD&D/2E and this version, while Lore-lite, is probably my favorite to date. Why? Because I can use all that old lore to my advantage. I can use places, items, people, plots, yadda-yadda in my current Realms just as easily as I could in previous editions. This is because I put more emphasis on what goes on in MY Realms than what some designer does. There are a lot of things that really bothered me about the old Realms, but you know what? I worked around them, I improvised, I changed, and I adapted. Heaven forbid that those same action be asked of others!
Then there were people Like me, that though I did not like 4e, I would most likely have used it as my home system because the FR was being supported by it. I am a support guy. I like looking forward to new releases for me to read and digest. I am well aware I could just keep the old realms, but I wanted updates, because it is fun. So I don't want to hear any of those arguments about I still had old realms.When I saw that the Forgotten Realms was no longer the world I recognized, that was a pretty solid message, confirming the 4e ruleset was not for me. I decided to move on, and play Warhammer FRP, and 3rd edition.
Then Pathfinder is released, and I can still play the FR with a rules system I thought was better than 3rd edition. Then I explored Golarion.
I don't care what WOTC does at this point with the D&D brand as I am no longer invested in it. If they released nice FR aniversary products I would probably buy them provided they were not the new vision of the realms.
That's probably the best advise to give to those who do not like the Realms and for those that don't like 4E. It's best, probably, to just leave it alone and play what you enjoy. I myself enjoy various other RPGs to 4E is just another thing to use for fun. I don't put too much emphsais on "Brand Loyalty" because, frankly, the idea is silly. I'll play what's fun regardless of who puts it out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a Canon Guru for FR. NO. They did not change any previous edition canon, that is correct. All that stuff still happened.
\
Try reading the FR wiki some time. The reworked whole area's of old realmslore so the new stuff could kinda fit/work. The wiki-war was why I stopped going to both candlekeep and the FR wiki
4E fans would edit out old lore and place the new "canon" in its place as the old established cannon was no longer "real" then the old guard would go change it back as that is how it was in the old books so that was canon, the new guys would delete whole section or change them.
It was a mess. 4e FR whole hog reworked both the future and the whole of the realms history just to make the changes work, as they simply could not work with the history and lore of 1-3 e
All I know is the wiki which supports 4e makes my 1e,2e and 3e books wrong in many, many ways. It outright change history of the gods, some nations and how magic works in FR which flys in the face of how it has always been.
This makes it a whole new setting just using names from another.
... Waterdeep saw relatively small changes, Baldur's Gate saw relatively small changes, Western Heartlands saw relatively small changes, The North saw relatively small change, Calimshan saw relatively small change, Moonsea saw relatively small change (ok they blew up Zhentil Keep, but it was sorta justified), Impiltur-Damara-Vaasa-Rasheman-Chult-Aglarond- ALL saw relatively small change. There were a few places, probably less than 25%, that were hugely re-shaped or changed in the setting. So yea, 'bout the same as in v3.5.
...
Small changes... depends on what you call small. Baldur's gate for example swelled with refugees so that it's actually bigger than Waterdeep and rivals the metropolises of the south and it also turned into a colonial power with areas held in Chult. Is it small or big? Well it wasn't nuked, but...
Try reading the FR wiki some time. The reworked whole area's of old realmslore so the new stuff could kinda fit/work. The wiki-war was why I stopped going to both candlekeep and the FR wiki
4E fans would edit out old lore and place the new "canon" in its place as the old established cannon was no longer "real" then the old guard would go change it back as that is how it was in the old books so that was canon, the new guys would delete whole section or change them.
It was a mess. 4e FR whole hog reworked both the future and the whole of the realms history just to make the changes work, as they simply could not work with the history and lore of 1-3 e
All I know is the wiki which supports 4e makes my 1e,2e and 3e books wrong in many, many ways. It outright change history of the gods, some nations and how magic works in FR which flys in the face of how it has always been.
This makes it a whole new setting just using names from another.
I agree it is a new setting capitalizing on the names of the old. I never used the wiki, though I was on candlekeep alot. I don't know how the wiki has changed, but when I am writing adventures for Pathfinder forgotten realms, I have tried to use the wiki. Since I know the lore really well, I can tell they changed the old lore. So I had to dig out my old realms stuff and research the old fashioned way.
Its OK they can have it.
I wrote backstory somewhere on Candlekeep how the Spellplague was avoided and the realms were saved. Mask bacame a greater god out of it, and SHar lost a lot of power. I worked off of an Erebus Cale novel and put my own twist in it.
Small changes... depends on what you call small. Baldur's gate for example swelled with refugees so that it's actually bigger than Waterdeep and rivals the metropolises of the south and it also turned into a colonial power with areas held in Chult. Is it small or big? Well it wasn't nuked, but...... Waterdeep saw relatively small changes, Baldur's Gate saw relatively small changes, Western Heartlands saw relatively small changes, The North saw relatively small change, Calimshan saw relatively small change, Moonsea saw relatively small change (ok they blew up Zhentil Keep, but it was sorta justified), Impiltur-Damara-Vaasa-Rasheman-Chult-Aglarond- ALL saw relatively small change. There were a few places, probably less than 25%, that were hugely re-shaped or changed in the setting. So yea, 'bout the same as in v3.5.
...
Don't forget the nonsensical change to waterdeep, where the poor live in sunken boats in the harbor. Ed Greenwood even wrote a novel about it.
From what I have heard, when WotC converted Dark Sun to 4e, they returned it to the era before the Prism Pentad novels, which drastically altered the setting much to the chagrin of many Dark Sun fans. Upon the 4e conversion, WotC supposedly said that these novels represent only one potential future for Dark Sun. Hence, I think the Dark Sun conversion to 4e has been handled well.
Since Dark Sun has successfully paved the way, there is no reason why WotC cannot take the same approach with Forgotten Realms once 5e comes out and say that 4e Realms represent only one possible future, while returning the setting back to the pre-4E era. After all, there is a precedent for that already.