| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... you're okay with the idea of a wrist sheath that lets you draw a wand faster than a normal belt or bag from the Core Rulebook, but not a carefully-packed bundle of goods for Small or Medium characters with weight that doesn't exactly match the equivalent items from the Core Rulebook? Why is the latter an "inconsistency" with the Core Rulebook and the former is not?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... you're okay with the idea of a wrist sheath that lets you draw a wand faster than a normal belt or bag from the Core Rulebook, but not a carefully-packed bundle of goods for Small or Medium characters with weight that doesn't exactly match the equivalent items from the Core Rulebook? Why is the latter an "inconsistency" with the Core Rulebook and the former is not?
The latter seems like a mistake, since those things already existed, and had weights and costs listed, and anyone with HeroLab or whatever could find out what they weigh and cost with some keystrokes (or you could look them up and add them up with your fingers and toes, for those of us who are HeroLab-less, but that takes longer). :)
The former seems like something new, an expansion or addition to the game, and not a collection of pre-existing items that function identically, but have inconsistent weights and costs.
The comparison itself feels a bit straw-mannish, anyway.
The funky bit is that once you remove an item from a kit, and hand it to a friend, it's weight magically changes, since it's got no *specific* weight as 'part of a kit,' only as an individual item. The weight of the kit also changes, perhaps by the weight of the item removed, perhaps not...
I don't hugely *care* about it, since I approve of the idea of the cost perhaps varying when you 'buy in bulk' (indeed, the cost savings seem to range around 1 gp, so as to barely matter anyway) and the correct weights are all listed in the core book, so I can just write down the correct weight for a medium or small creature.
I'm not a huge stickler for encumbrance anyway. I try to keep it below light encumbrance when I start out, but then I don't always keep track of every addition or subtraction thereafter. But, since the items in the book do have weights listed, and the game does have an encumbrance sub-stat, I at least pay it cursory attention when designing stuff, rather than just dismiss it as 'boring' and 'not suitably adventurous' and re-invent brand numbers instead.
I mean, really, if I'm gonna ignore the old numbers, why bother introducing new ones anyway? Might as well just say that the new kits are magically weightless, 'cause encumbrance isn't what PF is about and it just detracts from the gaming experience, if that's the argument you're going with.
That's not sarcasm, btw. I'd be fine with mundane gear being mostly weightless, crafted by genies in Qadira from 'smokeless fire' or whatever. The way Wayne Reynolds draws adventurers, I'm pretty sure that encumbrance is the last thing on his mind... I doubt I could *walk,* let alone fight, with all the stuff Alain has hanging off of him, and the iconic Alchemist is one wicker chair away from being the Junk Lady from Labyrinth. :)
Having been where ravingdork is, where not only is pigpiling acceptable, but is now being Dev-approved, I'm knee-jerkingly gonna side with him, whether I agree or not that this inconsistent weight thing is important.
People on the internet are gonna be dicks to other people on the internet. That's all part of life's rich pattern.
But I don't see any need for Paizo employees to be encouraging that sort of behavior.
Having been where ravingdork is, where not only is pigpiling acceptable, but is now being Dev-approved, I'm knee-jerkingly gonna side with him, whether I agree or not that this inconsistent weight thing is important.
People on the internet are gonna be dicks to other people on the internet. That's all part of life's rich pattern.
I've been arguing with him about it, but I certainly didnt intend it maliciously. Apologies (to ravingdork) if it came off like that - I'm just genuinely puzzled by the position of labelling it an inconsistency in the rules.
I think 'inconsistent' is just the wrong label - it's unrealistic and silly, but also (imo) unimportant.
I'm just genuinely puzzled by the position of labeling it an inconsistency in the rules.
I think 'inconsistent' is just the wrong label - it's unrealistic and silly, but also (imo) unimportant.
Yes. You're quite right. More of an unnecessary gray area than an inconsistency, one that was created and seemingly supported by the developers (which is why it completely baffles me).
I dont know - some areas are necessarily gray. It seems to me that we're always going to care about different aspects of the game.
EDIT: The experienced eighty year old librarian dusting himself off whilst the 16 year old apprentice dies horribly has always bugged me, for example where most seem fine just glossing over it.
There isn't necessarily a correlation between age and character level, kind of making the whole debate moot.
So... you're okay with the idea of a wrist sheath that lets you draw a wand faster than a normal belt or bag from the Core Rulebook, but not a carefully-packed bundle of goods for Small or Medium characters with weight that doesn't exactly match the equivalent items from the Core Rulebook? Why is the latter an "inconsistency" with the Core Rulebook and the former is not?The latter seems like a mistake, since those things already existed, and had weights and costs listed, and anyone with HeroLab or whatever could find out what they weigh and cost with some keystrokes (or you could look them up and add them up with your fingers and toes, for those of us who are HeroLab-less, but that takes longer). :)
The former seems like something new, an expansion or addition to the game, and not a collection of pre-existing items that function identically, but have inconsistent weights and costs.
The comparison itself feels a bit straw-mannish, anyway.
The funky bit is that once you remove an item from a kit, and hand it to a friend, it's weight magically changes, since it's got no *specific* weight as 'part of a kit,' only as an individual item. The weight of the kit also changes, perhaps by the weight of the item removed, perhaps not...
I don't hugely *care* about it, since I approve of the idea of the cost perhaps varying when you 'buy in bulk' (indeed, the cost savings seem to range around 1 gp, so as to barely matter anyway) and the correct weights are all listed in the core book, so I can just write down the correct weight for a medium or small creature.
I'm not a huge stickler for encumbrance anyway. I try to keep it below light encumbrance when I start out, but then I don't always keep track of every addition or subtraction thereafter. But, since the items in the book do have weights listed, and the game does have an encumbrance sub-stat, I at least pay it cursory attention when designing stuff, rather than just dismiss it as 'boring' and...
Well that's where I disagree. I don't think the Paizo devs were encouraging our pigpiling. If you should blame anyone, blame us that pretty much mocked Ravingdork. We're at fault
This isn't an apology mind you, because honestly this argument has become silly. Between over-exaggerating the issue and Ravingdork's history in these kind of arguments, I see no reason to take it seriously anymore. Crap kits? Derisive Snort? Power creep? Really? Sorry, but this issue is completely over dramatized and a mockery of itself.
Is dogpiling him a dick move? Yeah, it is. We are dicks and I'm not going to hide that fact. But when you have a history of being overly pedantic and overly dramatic, sometimes that follows you.
Maybe I'll be sorry in the morning. Right now I'm kind of laughing at the idea of miscalculated kits being power creep. Sorry.
But when you have a history of being overly pedantic and overly dramatic, sometimes that follows you.
I am pedantic. I only get dramatic when attacked, however.
The former seems like something new, an expansion or addition to the game, and not a collection of pre-existing items that function identically, but have inconsistent weights and costs.
Potato, tomato. The point is, it's nitpicking, and I'm not going to support it. I've already spent far more time on this issue than it's worth. :)
But when you have a history of being overly pedantic and overly dramatic, sometimes that follows you.I am pedantic. I only get dramatic when attacked, however.
Idk, "crap equipment" and "derisive snort" don't help too much in a discussion.
Of course neither does posting Youtube videos of Peter Griffin yelling "OMG WHO THE HELL CARES!". So I suppose we are even :)
There isn't necessarily a correlation between age and character level, kind of making the whole debate moot.
The point is an 80 year old shouldnt survive a fall that will kill a 16 year old - no matter how good they are at their respective professions.
In PF (and in D&Dish games in general) your ability to survive a fall is mostly derived from how good you are at your profession - which is silly, but a fact of life. Similarly kits "should" weigh the same as their constituent parts. But they dont (weight isnt really weight, obviously).
I'd like to get this thread back on the rails with my new favorite item
Angel Skin Hide Armor...
That alone made me finally buy the Way of the Wicked AP.
I'd like to get this thread back on the rails with my new favorite item
Angel Skin Hide Armor...
That alone made me finally buy the Way of the Wicked AP.
I agree. Let's get back on track. I think everyone has succeeded in making their points quite clearly.
Man that item is gross.
The former seems like something new, an expansion or addition to the game, and not a collection of pre-existing items that function identically, but have inconsistent weights and costs.Potato, tomato. The point is, it's nitpicking, and I'm not going to support it. I've already spent far more time on this issue than it's worth. :)
Well said that man!
Now <WHIPCRACK!> Get back to fixing the monk!
|
|
I'd like to get this thread back on the rails with my new favorite item
Angel Skin Hide Armor...
That alone made me finally buy the Way of the Wicked AP.
A higher powered version that was 50% or 100% effective, instead of 20% effective, could make for a neat magic item for an evil 'end-boss.' (100% might be 'too good' in that it would pretty much take a paladin's smite out of the equation, although a variation that, instead of having a 50% chance of totally negating 'good' damage from smite and holy word, etc. reduced that damage by 50%, could be more palatable than just flatly shutting down PC abilities and making them not work for that encounter.)
[tangent]
The way in which d20 treats 'hide' or 'leather' armor, as always giving a +2 or +4 armor bonus, whether it comes from a horse with natural armor of +0 or an astral deva with natural armor of +15 or an ancient red dragon with a natural armor of +33, is just 'another of those things.' The PCs have all these other means to enhance their armor class, so it would throw the system completley out of whack if armor made from +12 NA bulette's gave you a bigger armor bonus than armor made from +4 NA auroch's skin, I suppose.
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the hide of some critter (perhaps a type of crocodile?) made for hide armor with a +1 armor bonus over 'normal' hide armor. That sort of precedent could lead to all sorts of whackiness, given how high natural armor values get in the fantasy world...
[/tangent]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I ever play in one of your games, I will definitely play a wizard.
Heh. I use spell components like 1st editon did. Your don't have that relatively fresh bat guano? You ain't casting fireball unless you have the Eschew Materials feat. And no, one 'generic' spell component pouch isn't going to last your entire career.
And I have no qualms about thieves stealing your spellbook, mind.
MA
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
For those talking about encumbrance in PFS, there just happens to have been a discussion on that topic (HERE) going on recently. If you wish, feel free to split that sub-topic into that thread instead of this one. :)
|
Your don't have that relatively fresh bat guano?
Have you made the proper research as to how many days, in what humidity, temperature and other conditions the bat guano lasts as "relatively fresh"? Honest question here, I'm (somewhat morbidly) curious.
For the record, if I ever told one of my arcane caster players that 5 days have passed and his/her bat guano is no longer of the prime, tender quality required to produce efficient conflagrations of flame, I would get thrown out of the window. Granted, I live on the ground floor, but still.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, if I ever told one of my arcane caster players that 5 days have passed and his/her bat guano is no longer of the prime, tender quality required to produce efficient conflagrations of flame, I would get thrown out of the window. Granted, I live on the ground floor, but still.
Might be worth doing once just to see their face. Don't forget to get it on camera.
|
Herolab has an option that allows you to turn off encumbranceSolution: don't use encumbrance. :pAs stated above, that's not an option if you're using HeroLab. It automatically adjusts your speed, skills, etc, for encumbrance. And frankly, if I'm going to "not use" something, it'll be an add-on kit rather than part of the core rules.
I actually like encumbrance, having come up in a group that ignored it to the extent that it made my brain hurt thinking about the halfling rogue carrying 2 sets of full plate, 3 steel shields, 12 different weapons, and 40,000 gp in his backpack.
It also has an option to place items into a "drop on the floor" container and those items do nto count for encombrance. I use this to show items left at camp for example. That way super heavy items can be left on (armor for example) and others could be "turned off" if you wished.
I add an hero "home" for all the stuff left at home. And load on the horse or mule what they are transporting.
Having specific containers in a separate page would be nice.It also has an option to place lements in the "dropped on the floor" container and thus the encombrance is calculated based on only the items you say are on you. I use this to show items left at camp for example.You can also create your own custom containers and name them whatever you wish. If you create a custom location, nothing placed in that container counts against your character encumbrance. So you could have a "Home" location, a "Lab" location (for wizards, alchemists, etc.), a "Stronghold" location, a "Wagon" location (for all the loot acquired and dragged along), etc. Different items can be placed in each of these locations and none of it will count against the character's encumbrance.
So you don't need to use "Dropped on the Floor" for "Left at Camp". Just create your own "Left at Camp" location and use that - much less confusing. :)
You can also move items to your mounts. So if you have a horse, you can move stuff there. If you do this, then it will count against the encumbrance of the mount and not the character, which is usually the behavior you want to see happen.
Hope this helps...
The problem is that all that stuff is still mixed with all the otehr equipment, cluttering that page, with only a small note differentiating the location.
Having it in a different page or at least under a different header help.|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you start focusing on "realism" at the expense of "having heroic adventures," you've lost sight of the goal.
No offence meant, but I think this can be a very dangerous phrase. Removing too much realism don't lead to "having heroic adventures", it lead to playing Toons.
There is a limit on how much realism can be removed without breaking the game. The break point is different, depending on the different groups, but I can easily see some player taking you phrase like an authorization to remove all realism and then protesting because the game isn't fun any more.I am sure you think it will be taken with a gain of salt (I hope that idiomatic phrase exist in English) but I see a few players that like to push that kind of statement to the excess.
|
|
What was that thing called, where a house rule doesn't fix the underlying problem within the rules? People say it all the time on these and other roleplaying boards, but it escapes me at the moment.
It amazes me to see developers falling into the same trap.
No, it's good to see that game designers are avoiding YOUR trap. That rules are used where they are needed to moderate at a practical scale, not at a level where we are recalculating encumbrance for each cracker someone munches. Quite seriously if this is the level of how you think the game needs to be moderated, I wouldn't buy a book you wrote, I wouldn't play in a campaign you GM, and I would not want you at my table. I might have to put up with you if it was a PFS table, but not beyond the point where you're seriously hampering the fun of everyone else at the table.
Rules and mechanics are things you invoke to keep a game operating at an appropriate cinematic level if the game is about heroic roleplay. Not even the wargamers who are the ancestors of this hobby are as ludicrously finessing mechanics to the level that you constantly do on these boards.
If a game could be played entirely within RAW, we'd dispense with a GM and just put an adding machine at the head of the table. But playing is an organic experience. And that's what makes the game fun, or at least tolerable.j So yes we will house rule, we will house rule at our home games, we will house rule at PFS tables, and we will house rule in the trenches. And we use the rules and the RAW text in the manner they are meant for... to keep the gameplay on an even and fair keel as possible.
A lbs up or down shouldn't make all that difference, but it should not become: "I throw 5 days of rations to the black pudding, so it will stop to eat them" and, next encounter "I throw 50 caltrops to the rust monster".
People playing an overland trek should worry about encumbrance and food, people trying to haul 20 full plates out of a dungeon should have some problem.The problem with your reply is that it is as much absolutist as RD comment.
In PFS they bloody do fly. Because the only case where it makes a bloody difference are those PC's who keep their encumbrance to within 8 ounces of limit. If you're the type of player who...If you're the type of player who doesn't follow the rules and track encumbrance, conveniently forgetting to tell the GM of the PFS game that you should be taking penalties, then you're a cheater.
I don't understand why you're demonizing me because I have an expectation that people are going to follow the rules of the game.
Because except in the paranoid recessed of your mind because you ARE most likely one of the players who's an exception to my rule, most people ARE following the rules in a reasonable way and aren't playing characters who would change their movement rate because they ate a single biscuit or used one lousy bandage.
You I'd have to police, because you spend all your time thinking of ways to corner the game. No scratch that, I'd never have to police you, because I'd never have to conceivably GM you unless you went to a PFS event in the Tri-State.
Say that to the oracle in my game. Having 10 strength an armor and a shield make hard for her to stay in the light encumbrance bracket.
Sure, if you are happy to be in the medium encumbrance bracket isn't hard, but a light load is really little stuff if you have an armor.People tend to add this and that to their equipment and forget to add the weight. There are plenty of builds where the basic equipment already get you to the limit it of the light load and I see no reason to reward people that dump strength removing the main limit of their choice.
When you start focusing on "realism" at the expense of "having heroic adventures," you've lost sight of the goal.
No offence meant, but I think this can be a very dangerous phrase. Removing too much realism don't lead to "having heroic adventures", it lead to playing Toons.
There is a limit on how much realism can be removed without breaking the game. The break point is different, depending on the different groups, but I can easily see some player taking you phrase like an authorization to remove all realism and then protesting because the game isn't fun any more.
I am sure you think it will be taken with a gain of salt (I hope that idiomatic phrase exist in English) but I see a few players that like to push that kind of statement to the excess.
I don't think he meant that any realism is bad honestly, or that we should remove it to make things awesome. Instead, it's more like verisimilitude is good for the game until it starts to hamper on the fun and story of the campaign. That, of course, changes on the group. Some people love Oregon Trail: The RPG while others may not find keeping track of all their bat guano adds to the game.
Verisimilitude is like your rich obnoxious friend. He's great to have around for drinking since he buys all the drinks for everyone. But once he's had his fill and becomes obnoxious to everyone, you sometimes gotta lay him on his side and hope he doesn't go the way of John Bonham.
Realism is good to have EVEN in a magical game. Or else gravity wouldn't exist and I could shoo fireballs when I fart. But, you shouldn't have to suffer it at the expense of your and your players' fun.
|
|
There isn't necessarily a correlation between age and character level, kind of making the whole debate moot.The point is an 80 year old shouldnt survive a fall that will kill a 16 year old - no matter how good they are at their respective professions.
In PF (and in D&Dish games in general) your ability to survive a fall is mostly derived from how good you are at your profession - which is silly, but a fact of life. Similarly kits "should" weigh the same as their constituent parts. But they dont (weight isnt really weight, obviously).
Why?
I know an ottuagenarian that has fallen for a few meters without breaking a bone and a 16 year old girl that got a broken wrist for stumbling on a missing tile, less than a cm, depression.There are plenty of differences in falls.
Your problem is with the HP system, not with how it depict falls in particular.
|
|
The way in which d20 treats 'hide' or 'leather' armor, as always giving a +2 or +4 armor bonus, whether it comes from a horse with natural armor of +0 or an astral deva with natural armor of +15 or an ancient red dragon with a natural armor of +33, is just 'another of those things.' The PCs have all these other means to enhance their armor class, so it would throw the system completley out of whack if armor made from +12 NA bulette's gave you a bigger armor bonus than armor made from +4 NA auroch's skin, I suppose.
You can make heavier armors with a dragon skin, but they have higher encumbrance and are treated as the heavier armour, not as hide or leather.
I also remember in Dungeon Denizens Revisited where they had rules for Bullette Full Plate
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Odraude, I know, the problem is that there would be plenty of people that will take that phrase as a authorization to remove all realism.
1) I said "focusing on realism." I didn't say "insisting on having any realism."
2) If a group wants to remove all realism from their campaign and use the PFRPG rules to play superheroes or something like TOON, who are you or I to tell them they shouldn't do that?I think not catering to simulationists is going to be a bad plan in the long run.
The game table will look more like a scene from Star Trek, each player has their own "PADD" a device that combines all of the separate features in the range of devices beginning at laptops and ranging down to the "eReader".
It also means that things like encumbrance, movement, attacks of opportunity, etc become a lot less cumbersome, therefor permitting a faster more "fair" games.
Or, the people who design the games will realize that focusing on that level of detail doesn't make the game any more fun than if you ignore it.
World of Warcraft is an incredibly complex game. Characters have class abilities and gear that alter their stats by tenths of a percentage point. Yet WOW doesn't worry about the weight of gear; all characters have the same speed, whether a dwarf mage in cloth, an orc rogue in leather, or a blood elf paladin in full plate (oh, and there are class abilities and gear that can increase your base speed by X%). WOW doesn't worry about the weight of what you're carrying, it only cares about how many "bag spaces" you have, with several varieties of nonmagical bags having different sizes (the smallest bag is 4 spaces, the largest 10 spaces). WOW doesn't care if each of those slots has a plate chest piece (that should weigh 40 lbs.) or 20 potions (that should weigh 2 lbs.), it doesn't affect your character in any way except "do I have bag space to hold it." Because while some people may think tracking that level of detail is fun, most people don't.
So if this incredibly complex computer game doesn't obsess over whether or not you're encumbered, I don't think the future of "realistic" tabletop RPGs (like D&D and Pathfinder) are going to insist on tracking encumbrance just because they've shift to a VTT/laptop/smartphone interface.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Geez. Did you just use World of Warcraft as a reason behind ditching encumbrence, Sean? WoW is not a traditional RPG by any stretch of the imagination . . . it is a frigging computer game. Look at what Wizards of the Coast did with 4th Edition, trying to turn it into a pen-and-pencil version of WoW. How it cost them customers that you folks at Paizo picked up with Pathfinder.
I'd be real hesitant to justify removing something that is built into the game because "WoW doesn't do it". Encumbrance has been part and parcel of this game since 1st Edition. It may have been ignored by some gamers, but it is has been included in every single edition since them . . . including today's Pathfinder rules.
And dismissing concerns over how these kits have been built and their weight is not appropriate for what they contain isn't something you (or any designer) should just shrug off with a pithy response of 'it doesn't matter'. The reason we have rules is to establish a base-line around which the game is played. And if those rules already establish that this item weighs 4 lbs and this item weighs 5 lbs and a third item weighs 2 lbs, and you put them in a kit that weighs 8 lbs . . . then something is wrong with the internal consistency of the game. Which, by the way, doesn't need to be realistic to the actual real-life world, but does need to be internally consistent to establish that verisimiltude.
MA
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
MA,
Build your own tabletop RPG company and then print your own rules for customers. This will solve ALL your problems Pathfinder.
What YOU should never do is constantly berate a designer by explicitly trying to tell them their job in as nasty and childish a way as possible.
Sean wasn't trying to "make Pathfinder into WoW". He's using a comparison to say that what's important to MOST of the customers is more important than what is important to ONE customer (or in general terms the 80/20 rule).
It's lessening my fun of the game just seeing your constant attacks on the designers in ALMOST EVERY thread.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Geez. Did you just use World of Warcraft as a reason behind ditching encumbrence, Sean?
No, he used it as an example for his reason. The reason being 'micromanaging the encumbrance rules does not add enough fun to the game to be a worthwhile investment'.
Personally, I find it a break in versimilitude that every item has a fixed weight that never varies from one like item to another. So I have no qualms about a kit not matching up to individual items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MA,
Build your own tabletop RPG company and then print your own rules for customers. This will solve ALL your problems Pathfinder.
What YOU should never do is constantly berate a designer by explicitly trying to tell them their job in as nasty and childish a way as possible.
Sean wasn't trying to "make Pathfinder into WoW". He's using a comparison to say that what's important to MOST of the customers is more important than what is important to ONE customer (or in general terms the 80/20 rule).
It's lessening my fun of the game just seeing your constant attacks on the designers in ALMOST EVERY thread.
Pretty much this and TOZ. Not to mention that A) this 'friggin computer game' has probably made more money than most TTRPGS and has been this generation's gateway drug to DnD, B) dismissing the competition is never a smart move for a company and C) 4ed's issues were beyond "it's too much like WoW". But this isn't the thread for an edition war.
MA,
Build your own tabletop RPG company and then print your own rules for customers. This will solve ALL your problems Pathfinder.
What YOU should never do is constantly berate a designer by explicitly trying to tell them their job in as nasty and childish a way as possible.
Sean wasn't trying to "make Pathfinder into WoW". He's using a comparison to say that what's important to MOST of the customers is more important than what is important to ONE customer (or in general terms the 80/20 rule).
It's lessening my fun of the game just seeing your constant attacks on the designers in ALMOST EVERY thread.
In what way do you believe that my post was nasty and childish? For that matter, when have I been constantly berating Sean or any other designer? Disagreeing with someone, even a developer of this game, and expressing that disagreement, is not berating. I do not disagree with SKR on everything, or even on most things. But on that particular post, I most definately do.
Honest criticism and expression of thought, sir, is not something that should be quashed. And since I post in a very small majority of the threads on these boards, I would suggest that I am not attacking the designer in almost every thread.
Before you offer me any advice on how to post, Pendin Fust, I suggest you remove the beam from your own eye.
MA
I would take your honest criticism much easier as that, if you hadn't been on the same warpath with other designers. I'm not going to link to them, or even spend my time searching as I'm sure others can find those posts much faster than I care to.
And dismissing concerns over how these kits have been built and their weight is not appropriate for what they contain isn't something you (or any designer) should just shrug off with a pithy response of 'it doesn't matter'. The reason we have rules is to establish a base-line around which the game is played.
There is no part of this that is not childish and condescending to a person who does this for a living.
Again, in your own argument, "Honest criticism and expression of thought, sir, is not something that should be quashed". I am disagreeing with you, and giving an alternative in forming your own company.
By the way, I do happen to like encumbrance rules and I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, I am merely disagreeing with your tactics on offering said criticism.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
WOW is a bad example because WOW is a MMO, not an pen and paper RPG that can be played with/on a computer. WOW must target the lowest common denominator.
There are some who argue that games like D&D and Pathfinder are targeting the lowest common denominator, so I'm not sure what your point is.
The more pen and paper RPGs try to emulate WOW the less reasons there are to play pen and paper (including digital pen and paper).
So being able to track the minutiae of encumbrance is an incentive to play tabletop RPGs?
D&D with a computer is a totally different animal than an MMO, what works for one rarely has anything to do with what works for the other.
Having worked on D&D and D&D video games, I have far more perspective about this than you do. I am very familiar with deciding where the line is between and and
(*For example, when working on Baldur's Gate III, someone at Wizards wanted us to include the Massive Damage Rule. I had to explain to them that Timmy the Computer Gamer is going to freak out if his character with 100 hp takes 50 hp of damage and dies even though he still has 50 hp left. Some things make don't make sense when you translate them to a different system/platform/edition/whatever.)
I have played many a game where encumbrance is a major factor. Having to choose between dragging your ally back to town or taking the loot can have profound story implications.
If that is the case, I think you and I have very different ideas about "profound story implications" in a game.
Not that you NEED a detailed encumbrance system to play that out, but it sure would make it easier and more natural in a world where a computer can take care of those details for you instead of having to figure it out on a case by case basis.
Except if the computer cares about encumbrance so you don't have to, you'll still reach a point where your encumbrance affects your visible, obvious character stats like speed and AC, at which point the player has to--excuse me, gets to--delve into the minutiae of how much everything he carries weighs so he can figure out exactly how many trail rations, units of copper coins, empty potion flasks, full waterskins, and bedrolls he needs to drop so he's back at your previous unencumbered state. So he doesn't have to worry about that stuff... until it becomes a problem, at which point he does have to worry about it ("it" meaning "an aspect of the game that has been completely unimportant and transparent to him until now"). How is worrying about it fun?
Or you can push it even farther in the direction of "realism" and have the software track volume as well as weight, so eventually he may hit his volume capacity before he hits his weight limit because he's carrying a bunch of potion vials and scroll cases instead of coins. So then he has to examine his inventory's volume statistics to figure out what to drop so he's not encumbered. How is that fun?
Unless the software has a built-in function that lets him click a button to "drop the cheapest heavy things I'm carrying," so he can just keep clicking it until he's back at the unencumbered state. At which point he may as well be dealing in units of "bag spaces" rather than pounds or cubic inches, because it doesn't matter to the player the actual weight of the item, he's just dropping clutter until you're optimized again.
Sure it might not be everyone's cup of tea but many people very much do play that way now even though it isn't well supported.
A lot of people liked playing with racial level limits and ability score limits, limited multiclassing, not being able to use raise dead on elves, ability score limits based on gender, to-hit tables by class, saving throw tables by class, THAC0, females having limited roles in adventuring parties because of pseudo-medieval sexism, and so on. Were they having more fun than we are now? Just because some people (I disagree with your suggestion that "many" people) want to play that way doesn't mean we should make that the default game. Should we force all players to adhere to a system that requires tracking little details that are irrelevant as soon as you can afford a handy haversack?
Some people like that, so much so there are entire RPGs built on that model.
And there are entire RPGs that hand-wave all combat because they're about intrigue or something else entirely. That doesn't mean they're a better or worse game, it means they're a different game. Just because there is such a game doesn't mean we want the Pathfinder RPG to be that game.
MA,
Build your own tabletop RPG company and then print your own rules for customers. This will solve ALL your problems Pathfinder.
What YOU should never do is constantly berate a designer by explicitly trying to tell them their job in as nasty and childish a way as possible.
Sean wasn't trying to "make Pathfinder into WoW". He's using a comparison to say that what's important to MOST of the customers is more important than what is important to ONE customer (or in general terms the 80/20 rule).
It's lessening my fun of the game just seeing your constant attacks on the designers in ALMOST EVERY thread.
In what way do you believe that my post was nasty and childish? For that matter, when have I been constantly berating Sean or any other designer? Disagreeing with someone, even a developer of this game, and expressing that disagreement, is not berating. I do not disagree with SKR on everything, or even on most things. But on that particular post, I most definately do.
Honest criticism and expression of thought, sir, is not something that should be quashed. And since I post in a very small majority of the threads on these boards, I would suggest that I am not attacking the designer in almost every thread.
Before you offer me any advice on how to post, Pendin Fust, I suggest you remove the beam from your own eye.
MA
Not really nasty but completely missed the point of the argument. We're talking about verisimilitude in games, not why being like WoW ruined 4th edition.
There are many things from the first edition of the game that didn't stick around because they didn't add anything to the game, or worse, subtracted the fun. Some would argue there are sacred cows from first ed that need to be culled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, when looking at realism in a fantasy game, there are some things you have to ask yourself:
Does this add to the game in a meaningful way?
Does this affect the fun negatively?
If the answer is yes and no, then by all means, keep it. If it's no and yes, then obviously don't have it. If it's no and no (like in this case), then you have to decide if it is worth fixing it. Many of us including the devs don't believe that minor differences in weights will affect the game in a negative way. With other things to look at (writing new books, fixing up some things that may need reworking, etc), this is fairly low on the list and will honestly not affect the game as badly as a broken feat or spell. Some times you gotta pick and choose your battles and this, at least to me, isn't one that's worth it.
OK, allow me to address the problems of 'kits' and their encumbrance with the following rationale:
1) Encumbrance is actually a combination of two factors, volume and mass. As it is is easier and more convenient to just track mass, some if not many items are given a mass that reflects their 'total encumbrance' rather than just their physical mass. Trying to carry bulky items slows you down just as much as trying to carry heavy ones, after all.
2) A kit is packed and packaged in such a way as to take up less bulk using specialist methods such as tool belts, equipment harnesses, or just plain clever packing, and as such has a lower encumbrance value than the individual 'mass' of it's components would suggest.
3) Taking an item out of a kit and handing it to another person removes it from the kit and hence from the encumbrance-reducing package.
Happy now?
Verisimilitude
I will also add that verisimilitude is important in games, but you can take it too far. In some games I would pretty much waive encumbrance, and others - such as when travelling long distances or trying to live off the land - when what the party is carrying and how much it weighs can suddenly become vital. The game should be able to cater to both of these extremes to attract and please the widest possible diversity of players.
Happy now?(S)
You didn't take gravitational field strength into account. (S)
(S)All fantasy worlds are assumed as standard to have the equivalent of one standard Earth gravity at their surface. Worlds with non-standard surface gravity should include source material on how this will effect encumbrance for visiting aliens. Natives will of course experience gravity as 'normal' for themselves as they will possess proportionally weaker or stronger musculature from lifelong acclimatization.(/S)