So you're a big kid now?I took ten when I did my last Everest ascent. Without Oxygen, of course. Backwards, with a blindfold, and carrying a Sherpa under each arm.
But, I don't include my personal life into the discussion .
Big?! No, Huge! I stand more than six axe handles tall, and I have a blue ox as my Mount.
Did I mention I was dating a world famous billionaire / Bikini supermodel astrophysicist?
(Thanks Al)
Never said it was a success. I contributed to writing a game, nothing more and nothing less.
Don't take this the wrong way, but it is of my opinion that several of your suggestions to perceived flaw's in pathfinder might be one of the reasons the game you co-authored was not more successful.
You seem hell bent on making the game more restrictive, and more difficult for the player. Again, it's just my opinion, but I would prefer the game to not be as punishing to the players as you seem to want to make it. And I would imagine most would feel the same way.
|
I'm actually with ShallowSoul, identifying the book isn't going to accomplish anything but give out more info than (s)he wants. He or she could just say they are Mr Anchili or Rein-Hagen and whatever, and who is going to prove them right or wrong.
(S)He's just saying that in their opinion, it doesn't work that way and has a little experience on the subject. I don't, and I agree for the most part.
I wish there was more standardization in spells. For instance, area of effects and how/who they effect...
Fireball affects a radius and everyone in that radius is subject to the spell (without a metamagic feat involved). Haste affects an area (seemingly) but is targetable to specific individuals within the area. Why? Why not make area of effects true AoEs and affect all within? Same goes for buffs and debuffs that aren't specifically spreads or bursts (but seemingly should be). If you want spells to be that selective then make them range = touch.
Also, get rid of the "x creature/level, no two of which can be more than xx feet apart" targeting. Make them bursts/spreads and be done with it. Let me use spell templates that I purchased for the specific purpose.
I will add my voice that I wish the rules were easier to digest. They seem spread out into various sections. The PRD and its search feature helps us out on many occasions, though, and us old schoolers are pretty skilled at using the CRB's index (I think I have 10 ranks in it).
Traits - you could have a standard skill trait, +1 on the skill and it becomes a class skill - just add flavor. No other skill-related trait should be strictly better than this.
WBL - In lower magic campaigns, you could have: 1) Magic is rare - magic items cost double and characters can take one magic item creation feat maximum. 2) Magic is very rare - magic items cost 4 times as much, no magic item creation feats may be taken.
Traits - you could have a standard skill trait, +1 on the skill and it becomes a class skill - just add flavor. No other skill-related trait should be strictly better than this.
You make a lot of sense, there. I can see some other skill traits remaining that are more unique and circumstantial (for example, "Forester: you gain a +2 bonus to Climb and Acrobatics when in trees.") But still, that would make looking up traits a heck of a lot easier.
WBL - In lower magic campaigns, you could have: 1) Magic is rare - magic items cost double and characters can take one magic item creation feat maximum. 2) Magic is very rare - magic items cost 4 times as much, no magic item creation feats may be taken.
That doesn't help the CR issue however. Monsters of a certain CR are designed to "expect" PCs to have certain levels of saves, AC, and attack bonuses, which assumes that the PCs are equipped with magic weapons, armor, and magical gear of a certain quality.
You can provide guidelines for how to run a low magic campaign, but they need to include how to adjust encounters/CRs for them.
Also, get rid of the "x creature/level, no two of which can be more than xx feet apart" targeting. Make them bursts/spreads and be done with it. Let me use spell templates that I purchased for the specific purpose.
I will add my voice that I wish the rules were easier to digest. They seem spread out into various sections. The PRD and its search feature helps us out on many occasions, though, and us old schoolers are pretty skilled at using the CRB's index (I think I have 10 ranks in it).
I like to think of that targeting mechanism you mentioned as a burst with a reverse selective spell. It's still a radius, much like a fireball, but instead of excluding targets as a selective spell does, you include them.
I would also relay that sentiment that the rules are spread out a bit too much for my taste. Yes the searchable PRD helps, but some extra forethought could have made the written book much easier to follow.
|
I always thought it was really weird that when you're trying to hurt someone with a weapon YOU rolled a dice, but when you're trying to use a spell against someone THEY roll a dice. Unless the spell is like a beam, in which case YOU roll a dice again. This, admittedly, isn't that big a deal, especially since the "players roll all the dice" rule seems to be a really elegant fix.
This.
I played in a short Star Wars SAGA game and I really liked how that system uses Defenses(Saves).
I would also get rid of iterative attacks and make them feats but have them function like they do in Trailblazer.
I've always used some form of "Armour as DR" in my games so that is a given.
I've never liked HPs so I would use Vitality/Wounds system.
If that mythological "freetime" ever wanders back into my life I'll be making those changes.
There's a few other small things that I'd change but I like everything else.
SM
I always thought it was really weird that when you're trying to hurt someone with a weapon YOU rolled a dice, but when you're trying to use a spell against someone THEY roll a dice. Unless the spell is like a beam, in which case YOU roll a dice again. This, admittedly, isn't that big a deal, especially since the "players roll all the dice" rule seems to be a really elegant fix.This.
I played in a short Star Wars SAGA game and I really liked how that system uses Defenses(Saves).
I would also get rid of iterative attacks and make them feats but have them function like they do in Trailblazer.
I've always used some form of "Armour as DR" in my games so that is a given.
I've never liked HPs so I would use Vitality/Wounds system.
If that mythological "freetime" ever wanders back into my life I'll be making those changes.
There's a few other small things that I'd change but I like everything else.
SM
So let me get this straight... You'd Change the way we save against magic, the way we attack, the way we defend against attacks, and the way we determine how hurt our chars are from successful attacks.
More power to you I guess, but you essentially want to change everything about the game :)
|
|
I personally hate Armor as DR, and I question sometimes if it's advocates have actually used it or just think it sounds interesting. In my opinion, it drains resources even more, and just isn't fun.
I can take or leave Wounds and Vitality. I've never played SWSaga, but I have used the 3.5 Defenses System, and honestly I didn't care for it. It both added an extra level of complexity, but also opened the door for odd situations like what if the attacker and the defender both roll Nat 20's? I hated 4E's Defense system, as a matter of preference, especially as it all went of the better of 2 stats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always thought it was really weird that when you're trying to hurt someone with a weapon YOU rolled a dice, but when you're trying to use a spell against someone THEY roll a dice. Unless the spell is like a beam, in which case YOU roll a dice again. This, admittedly, isn't that big a deal, especially since the "players roll all the dice" rule seems to be a really elegant fix.This.
I played in a short Star Wars SAGA game and I really liked how that system uses Defenses(Saves).
I would also get rid of iterative attacks and make them feats but have them function like they do in Trailblazer.
I've always used some form of "Armour as DR" in my games so that is a given.
I've never liked HPs so I would use Vitality/Wounds system.
If that mythological "freetime" ever wanders back into my life I'll be making those changes.
There's a few other small things that I'd change but I like everything else.
SM
So let me get this straight... You'd Change the way we save against magic, the way we attack, the way we defend against attacks, and the way we determine how hurt our chars are from successful attacks.
More power to you I guess, but you essentially want to change everything about the game :)
Yeah, I mean there are scads of other FRPs out there, why try and shoehorn PF into something that is so far off? Sure, there’s always some little thing that can be improved or some minor part of the game someone doesn’t like but others do, but that laundry list is basically “Not D&D”.
|
|
Why not?
What is or is NOT "DnD" has changed so much over the last 4 decades that to say something ISN'T "DnD" is comical at best. There was a time when Skills or Proficiencies were "NOT DnD." There was a time when ONLY Fighters and Thieves could use two-weapon fighting. There was a time when only fighter got extra attacks. All of that has changed as the concept of DnD evolved over the intervening decades. The d20 system is flexible enough that you can adapt it to your liking without having to re-engineer the mechanics from scratch or "shoehorn" something in.
I really liked how letting the attacker roll vs a defense speeds up combat. The only thing that changes is who is rolling the dice which means that the all of the relevant dice can be rolled at once. If the green d20 hits then the effect is triggered in addition to any damage from the attack. If the red d20 beats the relevant Defense then the effect happens. All with one roll by one person.
Iterative attacks only came into being with 3E. They tend to bog things down, especially at higher levels when the last of them rarely hit anyway. The SAGA system made them feats and Trailblazer simplified the penalty for each extra attack. I think combining those two ideas would help speed up combat, especially at higher levels, without nullifying feats or abilities that make use of iterative attacks. I'll definitely be using this in the next game I run whenever "Freetime" comes my way again.
I can only think of two or three groups in 30 years of gaming that DIDN'T use some form of Armour as DR. Even in the 1E/2E era where you had to cook up your own from scratch. Yes, I understand that DR didn't exist in the early editions but the concept of armour absorbing some of the damage from an attack has been around far longer than the name "Damage Reduction."
The Wounds/Vigor system just adds a layer above HPs. I like it because it evens the playing field. Even the baddest of the bad have to be careful since a timely critical can ruin their day since Wounds are set at twice your Con. It adds a level of grittiness that I like in my games.
YMMV, of course.
SM
|
I personally hate Armor as DR, and I question sometimes if it's advocates have actually used it or just think it sounds interesting. In my opinion, it drains resources even more, and just isn't fun.
I can take or leave Wounds and Vitality. I've never played SWSaga, but I have used the 3.5 Defenses System, and honestly I didn't care for it. It both added an extra level of complexity, but also opened the door for odd situations like what if the attacker and the defender both roll Nat 20's? I hated 4E's Defense system, as a matter of preference, especially as it all went of the better of 2 stats.
The Unearthed Arcana book from 3rd edition has some rules for armor using DR and having a lesser effect on your actual AC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a discussion of the current flaws of the system such as.
1: The Magic Item Creation system.
2: Traits (Some are just too good).
3: Spells such as Simulacrum, Charm Person, and Planar Binding just to name a few.
4: The wording of some things are just not clear.
5: WBL and how it works with some gaming styles and not others, including the default.
Now the thread doesn't have to focus on just those, there are others out there so post them here.
Odaude: To continue our earlier discussion. I see what your saying about Skill Focus and you are right but I still think getting a class skill and a bonus to it is a bit much for a trait.
Answering Shadowsoul:
1) Not just magic item crafting, but everything about magic items is questionable to me. What is the point of the craft skill if the only way to efficiently and effectively make magic items is to use spells? What is the purpose of having required magic items (the big six) be integral to the game? If such bonuses are so integral then shouldn't they be apart of the inherent progression characters get by leveling up, as opposed to dedicating extra resources to such progression?
2) Traits are not that big of a deal to me. The only thing that really grinds my gears about them is the name (and the confusion it creates with race traits). So, simply calling them advantages, or anything else for that matter, would be all the change I would require out of them. I would also make them apart of the core rules as opposed to being optional.
3) I would rework spells in general. Everything from what schools certain spells belong to, to unifying spell effects, to reworking how certain spells work to make them more balanced.
4) The whole core rule book could due with some better organization, and yes, the ivory tower design of 3.5 should be dropped in Pathfinder.
5) I think once magic items are reworked that wealth by level guidelines will follow, as in be reduced, so that is just an expectation assuming the above changes are made.
Other things I would change:
1) Rework CMB and CMD so as to be viable across all levels of play and against all creatures so as to give martial characters something more to do than say, "I hit it with my sword". Also, I would like to see grapple changed so as to be more clear and concise in how it works.
2) Changing the stealth rules as well as acrobatics rules so as to make both tumbling and stealth actually viable both in and out of combat.
3) Fighters should get acrobatics and perception as class skills, and martial characters in general should get a fast will save progression (actually just make that the barbarian and fighter). Also, fighters being able to apply their fighter only feats to entire weapon groups as a class feature as well as having an ability to reduce DR when making a melee attack as a class feature would be awesome as well.
4) All classes should be getting at least 4+intelligence modifier skills per level with indeterminate skill based classes getting 6 and the rogue getting 8. Speaking of the rogue...
5) The rogue should also gain more out of the skills they gets, like special abilities that only he activates based on how many skill ranks he has in a given skill. Also, giving them a back stab ability that allows them to gain a static bonus to damage when they have combat advantage that can also be modified on a critical hit as well as an alternate damage bonus that allows them to get back stab at range would be interesting as well. (heck, just combining them to work in one ability would be great). Also, I would change rogue talents to be in line with the revelations gained through oracle mysteries as I would prefer them to be fewer more powerful and effective abilities than what the rogue gains right now. As far as the Rogue's save progression I could see them getting a fast progression in Fortitude.
6) The monk in my opinion is better now after the recent changes. Now they just need abilities that don't invalidate each other (such as flurry of blows not working while moving) and I think it will be vastly improved.
7) I think the Paladin as presented in the core rulebook should be lawful good, and should have a Paladin Oath mechanic that lays out more specifically what a paladin can and can not do. This allows for archetypes to be created outside the core rulebook that allow for Paladins of varying alignments to exist by changing how the Paladin's Oath mechanic works. This would allow those who want a more traditional Paladin to simply not allow those archetypes (and not have to deal with variant alignment paladins in the core rules) while those who do want a paladin of a different alignment could simply take one of the oath archetypes.
Ok now I do realize that most of the changes taken together would mean a very different game then what is presented in core pathfinder, but I do honestly feel that they would go a long way to improving the game overall.
Edit:
1) Reworking iterative attacks to be some combination of Trailblazer and Star Wars Saga edition.
2) Upping the bower of prestige classes (for example allowing those that grant spellcasting to increase spellcasting at every level) as well as allowing favored class bonuses to apply to levels taken in prestige classes.
..Ok now I do realize that most of the changes taken together would mean a very different game then what is presented in core pathfinder, but I do honestly feel that they would go a long way to improving the game overall.
Except that it wouldn't be D&D then. Look, guys there are dozens of great FRPGs that have those features. Instead of trying to change D&D into those, why not just play one of them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that it wouldn't be D&D then.
D&D only has a very small number of ACTUAL sacred cows. The game we play is only superficially related to OD&D for instance. And 3e was a drastic departure from AD&D. And while there were some people who liked and and others who didn't, it could have just as well been called Castles and Cloud Giants and no one would have even noticed. The name D&D doesn't represent specific game mechanics well anymore because the defining mechanics that it started with are pretty much dead. It's become more like Final Fantasy, with a list of attached tropes, names, ideas, and concepts that get shoveled into completely unrelated games.
This is a discussion of the current flaws of the system such as.
1: The Magic Item Creation system.
2: Traits (Some are just too good).
3: Spells such as Simulacrum, Charm Person, and Planar Binding just to name a few.
5: WBL and how it works with some gaming styles and not others, including the default.
They're not flaws, they're features. Features I happen to like.
|
|
I'm going to get tarred and feathered for this, but I'd like less mechanics built into my spells.
They sometimes required a freaking legal degree to adjudicate, but 2e spells for example always felt more 'magicy.' Especially when you came across a big monster who for arbitrary reasons was vulnerable to like the first level light spell, or having low level spells that could be used to accomplish larger effects through using them differently.
Pathfinder has actually tried to take 3e and 1e-size it. Its brought back in a lot of the older elements from the initial system while avoiding 1e's pitfalls (lets make arcane npc loyalty tables!).
I've noticed this when reading the books. 1e books are fun to read, they give ideas and they seem very, very light on mechanics. 2e are similar, lots of fluff, little mechanics. 3e books read like flight manuals, its all feats, stats, new rules, and so on with little actual information. Pathfinder's source books seem more like 1e and 2e ones, they have mechanics, but they have large sections around showing off cool weapons, or how things work, or even how characters can be built. I think this is a good trend.
Also, on the armor as DR thing, its been something d20 systems have wanted for a while, this is because Armor as DR was there at its birth.
TSR, prior to coming out with 3e developed its own universal gaming system, Alternity. While widely overlooked because it was essentially TSR does GURPs, it was notable for introducing things we love today like the skill rank, circumstance bonuses (albeit for them it was adjudicated with rolling whole dice vs a -2), levels of skill success (a huge change over the NWProf system), and making all classes available to all people, it also made character development an ongoing thing versus a ding! style system.
Alternity utilized an armor as DR system and had a three tier combat system Stun-Wound-Mortal, that surprisingly worked really well. The system was ungainly, but it had that 2e awesomeness to it, while still being fun to play.
d20 modern is its underachieving, bastard offspring.
If you wonder why some things in d20 work odd, look at Alternity. Its essentially the d20 source code.
Spook25 - I won't tar and feather you, although I disagree with some of what you say. I do agree to an extent about spells with lighter mechanics. I think there's a difficult to find happy medium where a spell is described specifically enough it doesn't cause ridiculous arguments about how it can be used and the GM has a good idea how to adjudicate its effects and players can be creative with it, but you're not pouring through paragraph after paragraph of permutation upon permutation because the designer was overly obsessive about getting every tiny detail right/balanced at the expense of player/GM usability. I think if a spell takes up more than a few short paragraphs to explain how it works, it's a badly designed spell. It is hard to achieve the balance though, but I hope we'll get there eventually.
I don't want armor as DR just because I hate the DR mechanic. It slows down mid-higher level play in particular because you have to roll each damage roll separately and subtract DR from each one when it saves a lot of time just to roll all damage at once (and/or players spend all their time trying to find ways to bypass DR which gets boring). Conceptually the idea of DR (and armor as DR) makes sense, but I hate the way the mechanic works. It's one of the biggest chores of playing Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
..Ok now I do realize that most of the changes taken together would mean a very different game then what is presented in core pathfinder, but I do honestly feel that they would go a long way to improving the game overall.Except that it wouldn't be D&D then. Look, guys there are dozens of great FRPGs that have those features. Instead of trying to change D&D into those, why not just play one of them?
Are you telling me OD&D, and Basic, and AD&D, and 2nd Edition AD&D, and the 2nd and 3rd editions of basic, and 3.x/Pathfinder, and 4e, and DNDNext aren't all D&D as well? Are these various editions not all radically different from each other in multiple ways?
The point is that things change, and pathfinder, IMO, needs a change along these lines. To call it not D&D because its different from standard 3.X is to say that OD&D, Basic, AD&D, 2nd Edition versions of both AD&D and basic, 4e, and DnDNext are not D&D either. Which, IMO, doesn't hold up at all.
Furthermore, who says I don't play other games? Why am I not allowed to make suggested changes that I feel would better Pathfinder based on what I have experienced playing other games?
I think it's a matter of D&D striking a formula that was widely popular. So popular in fact, that once they tried to 'enhance' the system further with 4e, it did not go over very well.
Pathfinder recognized this and brought back the majority of the system with a few tweaks and changes. It is again widely popular. If Pathfinder comes out with a 2.0 that completely changes the system, you would most certainly see a 4e type reaction.
So the core of what made 3e 3.5e and Pathfinder so popular should not be considered when looking to change the system.
Are there a few tweaks and changes that could enhance the game?? Probably. But great care should be taken as to not destroy what made the systems so popular in the first place.
I agree on the trait system. I think the system could be streamlined.
What I would like to see is a list of bonuses, like,
+1 to any save
+1 to a class skill.
Make a non-class skill into a class skill.
Profiency with a single martial weapon
Then a section detailing how to work the bonuses into your character story.
I think it would be a lot easier to balance as well.
|
|
I don't want armor as DR just because I hate the DR mechanic. It slows down mid-higher level play in particular because you have to roll each damage roll separately and subtract DR from each one when it saves a lot of time just to roll all damage at once (and/or players spend all their time trying to find ways to bypass DR which gets boring). Conceptually the idea of DR (and armor as DR) makes sense, but I hate the way the mechanic works. It's one of the biggest chores of playing Pathfinder.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want it either. My rambling was meant to show that the Armor as DR thing has been a bugbear thats been with d20 since its inception waaaay back in the dying days of 2e when TSR was still around.
Alternity had a success based system with differing levels of success, IE: Hitting people better, as opposed to a binary situation, I think there was a 'dodge' mechanic or doing different actions increased your Difficulty Class or something (so that a guy running for cover imposed like a +2d10 penalty on the d20 roll or something).
The reason for the Armor as DR thing, is that armor becomes increasingly useless. While some DMs and Players are able to engineer ACs into the stratosphere they can't keep up with 3es proliferation of bonuses, bab and the like. In 2e, you had gods with a -10 AC (essentially a 30), who'd be getting hit left and right by the average 12th level figher who carts around something like a +15 or +16 on his primary attack. Its an attempt to avoid the 'high level nudity' effect I've seen where some high level folks don't bother with armor, and instead focus on maximizing hit points, dodge and saves. Again, I don't agree with it.
I don't agree with it because while Alternity or Star Wars mostly deals with people, wearing the same suits and the same defenses, fantasy RPGs involve dozens of odd monsters, creatures and the like. AC accounts for that, DR doesn't.
The system unbalance oddly came from making stats have such a direct effect. In 2e and earlier, you didn't get nearly as much bang from them as you do now. An 18(00) back in those days was perishingly rare and provided a bonus which we'd consider insigificant today.
Now, Spook, you will all say.. That was 2e, and ACs were whatever, and people only have 80hp at level 17. And I'll agree. But what hasn't changed is the d20.
Everything is based around the d20 in the d20 system and modifiers to it rest heavilly on it. The modifier increase (again not a bad thing) resulted in armor becoming less..armoring after a certain point, and leads people to want DR to balance the lithe dexterous folks against the guys who want to play walking tanks.
As for versions, there's a major version break that occured with the fall of TSR.
1e had intense tables and was essentially a DM fiat assisted wargame.
Unearthed Arcana added in the idea of kits and additional customization as well as introducing new rules that led to...
2e was principly fluff focused, with overlapping byzantine rules attempting to streamline the simulationist aspects of 1e while allowing you to do the things they do in fantasy novels.
2e began introducing Skills and Powers to let players better customize their characters, so all fighters wouldn't be essentially the same and so on..
Alternity and the old Saga (Which was based entirely on Dragonlance for some reason) brought in skills, more reasonable init trackers, and even rudementary ideas for feats.
TSR died around this point.
3e was released with an intense focus on synergies and building 'killer deck' style PCs. Just look at the Dragon Mags around the turn over, they had little boxes of optimization hints. 3e underwent huge power bloat, while also gaining more people interested and after Hasbro bought out WoTC we got..
4e from WoTC and Pathfinder from Paizo. Pathfinder continued revising the 3.5 system believing it was worth salvaging, and 4e instead well..thats irrelevant here to this discussion I think.
Ultimately the overall process has been towards a more mechanical based system. The major differences though between editions are well..usability.
There's a mechanics break between 2e and 3e. Up until then mechanics stayed more or less stable with tweaking, same saves, same stats, same way of handling things (THAC0, HD, etc).
3e changed that, and 4e changed it even more.
Arguing what makes 'DnD' though is really a question of feel. And again, feel changed drastically from 2e to 3e. I'm not going to say 4e or 3e isn't 'DnD'
And man, long post and I didn't really seem to say anything. I should go into politics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
D&D's hey day was long before the introduction of 3e so the most widely popular formula is not this one. If pathfinder were to make a 2nd edition to address the issues of the current edition then it is possible you could see a 4e type reaction. But it won't be simply because a new edition exists or because the rules take a drastic departure. It will be because those rules have failed their audience in some way. Not by being different. But because it is poorly designed. And that's the real reason 4e failed. Not because it was different. But because it was worse. If pathfinder makes a 2nd edition, it doesn't have to be.
EDIT: Spelling
|
|
The irony is 2e was a golden age of supplements, and some of them were good, but its also what killed TSR through having so much crap (bad supplements, dice games, so many failed ccgs, an attempted miniature combat line) on shelves everywhere and the associated overhead of production.
Poor management is what killed TSR.
The irony is 2e was a golden age of supplements, and some of them were good, but its also what killed TSR through having so much crap (bad supplements, dice games, so many failed ccgs, an attempted miniature combat line) on shelves everywhere and the associated overhead of production.Poor management is what killed TSR.
Isn't that pretty much the same thing? Only difference being Spook gave examples?
|
|
Isn't that pretty much the same thing? Only difference being Spook gave examples?The irony is 2e was a golden age of supplements, and some of them were good, but its also what killed TSR through having so much crap (bad supplements, dice games, so many failed ccgs, an attempted miniature combat line) on shelves everywhere and the associated overhead of production.Poor management is what killed TSR.
I wasn't talking about bad products, I was actually talking about money management. TSR had some crap products but at the same time, they had some great ones. I can't remember your womans name who was the CEO at the time but I read somewhere that it was basically she who singlehandedly led to it's downfall.
I wasn't talking about bad products, I was actually talking about money management. TSR had some crap products but at the same time, they had some great ones. I can't remember your womans name who was the CEO at the time but I read somewhere that it was basically she who singlehandedly led to it's downfall.Isn't that pretty much the same thing? Only difference being Spook gave examples?The irony is 2e was a golden age of supplements, and some of them were good, but its also what killed TSR through having so much crap (bad supplements, dice games, so many failed ccgs, an attempted miniature combat line) on shelves everywhere and the associated overhead of production.Poor management is what killed TSR.
Now we're just splitting hairs here. Rarely have I seen a company who pumps out bad products who has a stellar management team. Maybe the terms aren't exactly interchangeable, but similar enough that it doesn't warrant attempting to clarify someone else's example as if they said something wrong.
I get that you're at odds with a lot of things around here, but you spend too much effort picking fights with people who pretty much agree with you. No need to sort out and pick apart everyone whose angle is slightly different from yours.
|
|
I wasn't talking about bad products, I was actually talking about money management. TSR had some crap products but at the same time, they had some great ones. I can't remember your womans name who was the CEO at the time but I read somewhere that it was basically she who singlehandedly led to it's downfall.Isn't that pretty much the same thing? Only difference being Spook gave examples?The irony is 2e was a golden age of supplements, and some of them were good, but its also what killed TSR through having so much crap (bad supplements, dice games, so many failed ccgs, an attempted miniature combat line) on shelves everywhere and the associated overhead of production.Poor management is what killed TSR.Now we're just splitting hairs here. Rarely have I seen a company who pumps out bad products who has a stellar management team. Maybe the terms aren't exactly interchangeable, but similar enough that it doesn't warrant attempting to clarify someone else's example as if they said something wrong.
I get that you're at odds with a lot of things around here, but you spend too much effort picking fights with people who pretty much agree with you. No need to sort out and pick apart everyone whose angle is slightly different from yours.
The hell are you talking about? Nobody is splitting hairs here.
For example, while Palladium has put out some crap products, they have also put out some good ones but the fact is, they almost went under because of embezzlement, not because their products put them under.
Bad products is not what killed TSR. Now if there are some figures that say otherwise then fair enough but bad products don't always kill a business.
Edit: What's this picking a fight nonsense? Is that the new card that is being thrown around when you disagree with someone?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: What's this picking a fight nonsense? Is that the new card that is being thrown around when you disagree with someone?
Off topic.
I'm not an "industry insider," so the absolute particulars concerning something that happens to a company, are really more broad in perspective to me, than to everyone else around here, what with their published works and dinner dates with CEO's, etc(excuse the run on sentences). So, when one guy says "this company put out a lot of bad stuff, mishandled their product line, etc(paraphrasing)" and someone else says "bad management," sue me if in layman's terms, it pretty much sounds like the same thing.
"You're right, but I'm righter." is what more than half of this thread reads like to me. YMMV.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't really see it as picking a fight with me to be honest. I saw it as a reaffirmation.
Bad management = Glut of products.
TSR was notorious for reusing art back in those days too. I don't remember who the woman was, but she was apparently some publishing mandate who wanted to treat DnD like a book company. Again, at the time I was probably worried about acne and watching Hawk the Slayer on VHS while thinking buying an NES Satellite was a good idea. So take my opinions on history with a grain fo salt.
D&D's hey day was long before the introduction of 3e so the most widely popular formula is not this one. If pathfinder were to make a 2nd edition to address the issues of the current edition then it is possible you could see a 4e type reaction. But it won't be simply because a new edition exists or because the rules take a drastic departure. It will be because those rules have failed their audience in some way. Not by being different. But because it is poorly designed. And that's the real reason 4e failed. Not because it was different. But because it was worse. If pathfinder makes a 2nd edition, it doesn't have to be.
EDIT: Spelling
It's not a coincidence that tabletop games started declining about the same time computer rpg's began rising in popularity. Comparing the older editions popularity to newer editions needs to be considered within that bubble.
However, I fully agree with you that a new version of Pathfinder doesn't have to follow the same failed route that 4e did. If they stick to the core of the game, they can avoid that problem.
|
|
My understanding was that it was a combination of many things. A portion of it was due to Gygax's ex who sort of made it difficult to do some things, financial issues of the time, a problem with various printers and debt, and the very limite number of employees. It was less the number of products out, which in general sold well, but the fact that at a certain point many products that where done got stopped dead due to a debt issue which further increased the downward spiral.
Two of the biggest draws, in my opinion, for a new edition of PF over another "printing"/errata is that even if it contains 95% of the same (exact material), it would be able to clarify things as needed without needing to worry about keeping it streamline with the older book, and especially keeping the page format. It would mean that things could be reorganized, and rules that are pertinent could be placed nearer together. It would also mean that lessons learned over the last few years could be ncorporated into the core, and that some of the newer mechanics that are generally liked, (Grit for example) could also be right thre in the core book.
The ability to through in a few explinations here and there would have made the more recent Flurry of Blows/Reach Weapons not threatening 2 adjacent squares descoveries/debates an issue.
|
|
D&D's hey day was long before the introduction of 3e so the most widely popular formula is not this one. If pathfinder were to make a 2nd edition to address the issues of the current edition then it is possible you could see a 4e type reaction. But it won't be simply because a new edition exists or because the rules take a drastic departure. It will be because those rules have failed their audience in some way. Not by being different. But because it is poorly designed. And that's the real reason 4e failed. Not because it was different. But because it was worse. If pathfinder makes a 2nd edition, it doesn't have to be.
EDIT: Spelling
It's not a coincidence that tabletop games started declining about the same time computer rpg's began rising in popularity. Comparing the older editions popularity to newer editions needs to be considered within that bubble.
However, I fully agree with you that a new version of Pathfinder doesn't have to follow the same failed route that 4e did. If they stick to the core of the game, they can avoid that problem.
Agreed.
When Ultima Online and Everquest came out, people figured they could get their RPG fix without having to leave home and sink a bunch of time and money into it. All you had to do was log in and play away.
That became very appealing to a lot of people.
I am still waiting for the Op to back up his dubious claims about being a successful game designer.
edit double post
Except (from wikipedia)...
In 1981, you had 3 million players world-wide (approximately)
In 2007, you had 6 million world wide.So, with increasing availability of computer RPGs and the rise of 3.5e, the number of players doubled.
Not dropped. Not leveled off. Doubled.
And that's just looking at D&D, not RPGs as a whole.
Considering the statement in the wiki article : "The game had more than 3 million players around the world by 1981,[99] and copies of the rules were selling at a rate of about 750,000 per year by 1984."
At the rate it was selling, it should have been 22.5 mil in 2007. Now I don't have the full numbers, and I admit it was just hypothesis on my part, but I would expect to see a decline in the numbers around the early 90's
Except (from wikipedia)...
In 1981, you had 3 million players world-wide (approximately)
In 2007, you had 6 million world wide.So, with increasing availability of computer RPGs and the rise of 3.5e, the number of players doubled.
Not dropped. Not leveled off. Doubled.
And that's just looking at D&D, not RPGs as a whole.
Agreed and seconded. Video game RPG's have been around for just slightly less time than table-top ones. The Ultima series dates back pretty far, back to the early 80's at the very least.
Before I got married and became a family man, I spent roughly equal amounts of time playing MMO's and numerous sessions of table-top D&D each week. Both have their pros and cons.
Honestly, my biggest problem with Pathfinder is that there are things that are not properly conveyed. Some Archetypes are way vague and some other things are worded in ways that conflict or do not properly describe what's going on. If Pazio were to release something that clarified the current vagueness and cleared up conflicting wordings of spells, feats, abilities and rules, then I'd have very little problem with Pathfinder at all.
Some of the worst offenders, for me at least, are things like the Stonelord Paladin's Stone Servant, which doesn't give a lot of clarification to it and needs more about how it works. Does it use the same stats as a mount, as it indicates that it might? Is it just an earth elemental with the celestial template slapped on it? How many hit dice does it get? What's its base attack bonus? Do we get to pick feats for it, like we do an animal companion or mount? Needs more explanation.
Considering the statement in the wiki article : "The game had more than 3 million players around the world by 1981,[99] and copies of the rules were selling at a rate of about 750,000 per year by 1984."
At the rate it was selling, it should have been 22.5 mil in 2007. Now I don't have the full numbers, and I admit it was just hypothesis on my part, but I would expect to see a decline in the numbers around the early 90's
Your assuming every sale reported is a sale of the Player's Handbook to a new player. Not new editions sold to same players, new rulebooks / splat-books sold to existing players.
Now, it's not an unreasonable assumption, given the phrasing: "copies of the rules..."
However, without more data, it is still an assumption.
And I wouldn't consider it unreasonable to argue that the total numbers of players may only be proportionally accurate (double the number of players over a 26-year span), but not absolutely accurate. Without information regarding how these numbers were derived, we can only say with some confidence that "the number of players has increased, not decreased, over the period of 1981 to 2007". Which is enough to challenge the claim that 2e was the hey-day/peak/golden-age of D&D and the claim that # of players is falling due to the presence of video games.
The basis of my argument, which I fully admit lacks data, is that with the rise of mmorpg's in the 90's, the tabletop games popularity would decline.
It's not unreasonable to postulate that if sales were truly raising at 750,000 copies of the rules in 1984 (3 years after the 1981 3 mil figure), then it is entirely possible that DnD had reached the 6 million mark by 1985 (could even say 1989 if you want to be conservative about it).
So, my point is, that the growth rate either abruptly stopped and then leveled out, or, a more logical explanation is that the popularity of the game began to decline after a peak somewhere in the early 90's. And to use a starting number of 3 million which is a full 9 years before MMO's began their own rise doesn't quite tell the whole story.
Admittedly, I don't have the data. And don't really care to know. I do however feel my point is a valid one.
Some of the worst offenders, for me at least, are things like the Stonelord Paladin's Stone Servant, which doesn't give a lot of clarification to it and needs more about how it works. Does it use the same stats as a mount, as it indicates that it might? Is it just an earth elemental with the celestial template slapped on it? How many hit dice does it get? What's its base attack bonus? Do we get to pick feats for it, like we do an animal companion or mount? Needs more explanation.
Honestly, Paladin mount being nerfed to just a Animal Companion bothers me because flavorful/cool options aren't possible like 3.5.
No large spiders in PF as Mounts (the animal companion rules limit them to med at 5th, no web attack listed either)
The major limit on large mounts is bothersome in general (especially if original creature was large, if you want to limit to 15th level or something fine but still give back the large mounts)