Design Manager
|
So I've always loved Dungeons and Dragons, and when I realized that 4E wasn't the game for me, Pathfinder proved a ready and capable home. I've been intermittently dropping in to check out how D&D Next is shaping up, and this week at PAX I've had ample opportunity to play both systems.
The monk has always been a favorite of mine so my primary play this weekend in both systems has been with that class, the Paizo iconic Sajan and the DDN pre-gen, a monk bounty hunter.
Pathfinder was able to steal my gaming group away from 4E, because despite being a fairly rules-heavy system there were just certain elements to it that were more immersive. Spells that blend fluff and crunch, class options that can be as simple or as complex as you want... These are all really good things PF offers. I hated that I felt like I had to have a subscription for Wizards' character generator to properly keep track of my power cards and their plethora of keywords, many of which served no purpose other than serving as quietly enforced equipment restrictions that limited your options far more than basic proficiencies did. Sure you could build a druid with a bow, but you'll never be using any of your powers with it.
So now WotC has learned some hard lessons and they're coming out with this rules-light system that seems to be lasered in on stealing back what they lost to Paizo. In playing the two monk characters in each system, I couldn't help but feel like they'd collected all of the complaints about the PF/3.5 monk and specifically addressed them. The DDN monk can two weapon fight as a standard action, and can burn a ki point to Flurry for an additional attack. They also have monastic traditions that determine what kind of monk your character will be.
Has anyone else been looking at the two systems side by side? Have you seen what your favorite class looks like? What are your thoughts on the virtues/vices of the two systems as they currently stand?
Technically, the people you played with should have signed a NDA. It's the only (legal) way to get a copy of the playtest.
|
Design Manager
|
Technically, the people you played with should have signed a NDA. It's the only (legal) way to get a copy of the playtest.
I'm thinking since it was WotC running it, it's probably not an issue. I feel like if Wizards is letting thousands of people play their system without an NDA, those people can talk about their experience.
People have been freely discussing the new material in the 4E forum here...I think the newer packets have been released without NDA?
They didn't make anybody sign any NDA's at GenCon either, but I have signed it for the packets. I think more than anything else, especially after my talk with Mike Mearls at the Night with D&D event, they want people to share the system and talk about it; they just don't want people selling it and passing it off as their own.
Yeah, it wasn't really an NDA you signed to get the D&D:Next Playtest packets.
It's an agreement, but it doesn't prohibit talking about it publicly.
I think they may have learned the value of solid adventures/flavour material.
I am worried about the description of D&DNext as "rules lite." One of the things I disliked about 4e was the massive loss of complexity. Rules lite is fine for a game that's only going to last a couple months, but when you hope your campaign will last years, you (or at least I) need some depth to hold interest in the long term.
That's what brought my group to Pathfinder. We'd left 3.5 after our last big campaign and tried several rules lite systems (Savage Worlds, for instance,) but after a while they all get boring without any depth to explore, either in character development or in the combat.
3.5 was good about providing both long term character development depth, and a tactical game that changed in focus and strategy as you leveled from 1-20. I'm not sure a true "rules lite" system can accomplish this.
Guess I'll have to wait and see just how lite this new "rules lite" D&D is. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's their strategy - to compete with the OSRIC crowd, not the pathfinder fans. Complexity may come with time as they release their various rules "modules", but I don't think they're targeting people like you who want a complex/involved system.
One of the things they said they'd taken from the Playtest feedback was that the playtesters want a game that's quick to just pick up and play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They really need to release some top quality adventures.
I have been testing it out and I have been playing retro clones since late last year. 12 years of 3.x is enough.
It has been a bit rough in some packet but 2 have been quite good. The fighter, Cleric and Monk look reasonably good and the D&DN cleric seems to be almost the best cleric since 2nd eds specialty priests. Still having trouble getting people to play clerics in PF and in 3.5 despite being one of the best classes.
No wands of CLW either which I do not mind personally and I did not really like them that much in 3.5 either. You get less feats than 3rd/4th/PF but they are more powerful as each one is kind of like 3 feats rolled into one. Rather than worry about feat trees you get the whole lot at once or +2 to a stat or +1 to two stats. Feats vary by class fighter gets 7 IIRC, wizzie gets around 4.
Capping ability scores is also an interesting idea probably borrowed from AD&D. They have cut the numbers down a lot so you do not have the bloat part. Its not the easiest D&D I have ever run but it is very close. Mostly feels like D&D as well except spells do not scale and the wizards is more or less a 3.5 sorcerer with a spell book using 4th ed type daily powers you can "kick" to have them scale.
If they put it together right depending on the final product it looks like a decent D&D. If you think 3.x is your one true way it may not appeal as it has some 4th ed elements in it but they have drawn on BECMI and 2nd ed in p[arts as well, 1st ed not so much. It is easier to run than every other D&D with maybe the exception of BECMI or a d20 BECMI.
Mike Mealrs also seems to be trying hard as well. I can respect that and I kind of like the man as I had a neutral opinion on him during 4th eds run mostly because I avoided 4th ed.
|
Design Manager
|
I'm not sure why this thread is in the Pathfinder RPG section of the boards, since it's primarily discussing D&D mechanics.
Because my actual question had to do with what people thought about how the two compared side by side and what their feelings were about strengths/weaknesses between the two.
|
I am worried about the description of D&DNext as "rules lite." One of the things I disliked about 4e was the massive loss of complexity.
I get the feeling the base D&D Next game will be fairly light, but that modules will build on that, for example Skills and Feats were meant to be optional (not sure they are in the latest playtest packet). So I get the feeling D&D Next will be rules lite, moving to rule medium with some modules.
Rules lite is fine for a game that's only going to last a couple months, but when you hope your campaign will last years, you (or at least I) need some depth to hold interest in the long term.
Yeah, I think this completely depends on the player - I can imagine playing a long campaign using a rules light system if it evolved in the story, e.g. characters get married, get promoted, get blackmailed, etc. Quite a few RPGs also don't have much character advancement from the starting PC, e.g. Spirit of the Century, M&M, but that doesn't stop it working well for campaigns either.
Guess I'll have to wait and see just how lite this new "rules lite" D&D is. :)
And I think you will have to try it out yourself to determine that, because if you consider Savage Worlds rules lite, then I imagine your definition of lite may not match with many people's (for me Savage Worlds is rules medium, something like Risis is rules light, and a stuntless FATE could be rules lite).
Because my actual question had to do with what people thought about how the two compared side by side and what their feelings were about strengths/weaknesses between the two.
While I don't think you could technically consider what we've been doing a side-by-side, our expereinces from playing both 3E/PF, 4E, and playtesting Next might still paint you a decent picture.
FWIW I think Next is an okay system so far. It's still has a LONG way to go in terms of adjustments, monster math, and sub-class options to come close for my group to become interested in it for more than a session or two. There are things that D&D:Next promotes (such as Improv) that have such a gray area that it's hard to say how good the system really is. On it's face it doesn't allow for all that much when compared to 4E where a monk can do all sorts of cool stuff like attack a group of enemies and move out of the way. The game almosts insists that the DM take a lead role in allowing "coolness" to be had instead of the system. Some people enjoy that, others don't.
I saw my friend play a monk in our Minds of Madness game and he seemed to have fun punching and kicking skeletons (who have vulnerable to bludgeoning) but still, it was like kick-kick-punch....next. When I rolled up my Monk for Dark Sun 4E, I could do a LOT more than just those few basics on per-battle basis with At-Wills. I just don't know if D&D:NExt provides the tactical depth that we've been really enjoying with 4E.
Another example was the Paladin. At 1st level he's rather bland, boring, and almost completely indifferent from say....the Fighter. The Fighter get's second wind and the paladin can lay on hands 5 HP. Really, there's little mechanical difference until 3rd level when sub-classes start to show and even then....the differences aren't major.
Two things Paizo has done right that WotC could learn from:
1. Quality adventures in quantity.
2. Quality campaign world.
The first is so important because there are new DMs and/or DMs that don't have a lot of time for game prep. Quality adventures, put out on a regular basis, are needed to fuel the game to keep it appealing to a large audience.
The second is often desired to bring flavor to the game. Sure you understand the nuts and bolts of the game, but what does the world look like?
Paizo has bested WotC in both areas. While D&D Next needs the right balance in its rules design to attract a large, diverse player base, it will need these two things to keep the game going for the long haul (or at least for 5+ years until it releases the next edition of the game).
|
|
Two things Paizo has done right that WotC could learn from:
1. Quality adventures in quantity.
2. Quality campaign world.
Whilst I imagine the former is true (I haven't read many WotC or PF adventures) I think WotC have done pretty well for campaign worlds - both Eberron and Athas (Dark Sun) have more appeal to me than Golarion.
And whilst I am not a fan of Forgotten Realms, the fact that WotC does only support that setting means I am more engaged with the system (whereas with Pathfinder, if you find Golarion a bit "meh" you have no official (i.e. Paizo) alternative. And yes, a setting being official means a lot - at least to me.
Two things Paizo has done right that WotC could learn from:
1. Quality adventures in quantity.
2. Quality campaign world.
Whilst I imagine the former is true (I haven't read many WotC or PF adventures) I think WotC have done pretty well for campaign worlds - both Eberron and Athas (Dark Sun) have more appeal to me than Golarion.
And whilst I am not a fan of Forgotten Realms, the fact that WotC does only support that setting means I am more engaged with the system (whereas with Pathfinder, if you find Golarion a bit "meh" you have no official (i.e. Paizo) alternative. And yes, a setting being official means a lot - at least to me.
I'll agree that Eberron and Dark Sun are quite good settings. However, Dark Sun was a TSR-era creation. Most of that setting's flavor was established pre-WotC. Eberron was created via an online contest for a fan-created setting. While WotC has added some parts to it, WotC didn't lay the groundwork. To me, that doesn't make the settings WotC creations.
The only setting that WotC created, that I can recall, was the "sandbox" points-of-light map in the 4E DMG. Even that wasn't totally original (ex. Keep on the Shadowfell was just an expansion of the D&D 3.0 Dungeon Magazine adventure, Evil Unearthed.) Plus they took their most popular "inherited setting", Forgotten Realms, and put it in a blender to create an arguably less popular setting. (Don't have hard stats to support my statement, mind you, just anecdotal experiences via conversations and forum posts.)
But I agree with your statement that Paizo could create an alternative setting for Pathfinder. It might "dilute" their efforts to support their flagship setting (and product), but an alternative would be nice.
|
I think that's their strategy - to compete with the OSRIC crowd, not the pathfinder fans.
What is OSRIC?
Anyway, If the purpose of D&DN is to attract the Paizo crowed, I think it is doomed to fail. It's gonna be quite a while before D&DN accumulates enough published material and support to make it comparable to Pathfinder in terms of depth, options and all around richness. People who play Pathfinder now will see a nice new system come out, which might be fun - but is it worth transitioning to it? is it worth abandoning the game they have going now, with so many classes, feats, spells etc. for a much shallower game that will take years to close the gap? and while it closes the gap, Pathfinder will continue to evolve.
WotC are not aiming to "steal" people back from Paizo, and they shouldn't, because it's a lost cause. They aim to please as many crowed as possible, to increase the potential player pool as much as they can. It's no wonder than that the OP found certain elements of the game to be pleasing in a way that seems directly targeted at him - I'm sure anyone would have found some part of the game to be exactly what they want.
WotC can't take Paizo at their own game, and they are not trying to. They are just trying to create as popular and fun a game as possible, and some aspects of it are there to please the Paizo crowd, because it's a large crowd that needs to be acknowledged.
|
OSRIC was the first retro-clone, released in 2006. It was made with Matt Finch realized that you could use the OGL and SRD to create an entire game that faithfully replicated past editions of D&D. It's basically 1E AD&D.
Pathfinder owes a lot to OSRIC, such as the revelation that the OGL and SRD could be used to create a full rules set, without WotC's permission.
I don't think that WotC necessarily needs to get people to stop playing Pathfinder...they just need to get some portion of the Pathfinder fan base to play D&D as well...which is almost certain to happen. Will they get enough to please Hasbro? Who knows?
Two things Paizo has done right that WotC could learn from:
1. Quality adventures in quantity.
2. Quality campaign world.
Whilst I imagine the former is true (I haven't read many WotC or PF adventures) I think WotC have done pretty well for campaign worlds - both Eberron and Athas (Dark Sun) have more appeal to me than Golarion.
And whilst I am not a fan of Forgotten Realms, the fact that WotC does only support that setting means I am more engaged with the system (whereas with Pathfinder, if you find Golarion a bit "meh" you have no official (i.e. Paizo) alternative. And yes, a setting being official means a lot - at least to me.
I'll agree that Eberron and Dark Sun are quite good settings. However, Dark Sun was a TSR-era creation. Most of that setting's flavor was established pre-WotC. Eberron was created via an online contest for a fan-created setting. While WotC has added some parts to it, WotC didn't lay the groundwork. To me, that doesn't make the settings WotC creations.
The only setting that WotC created, that I can recall, was the "sandbox" points-of-light map in the 4E DMG. Even that wasn't totally original (ex. Keep on the Shadowfell was just an expansion of the D&D 3.0 Dungeon Magazine adventure, Evil Unearthed.) Plus they took their most popular "inherited setting", Forgotten Realms, and put it in a blender to create an arguably less popular setting. (Don't have hard stats to support my statement, mind you, just anecdotal experiences via conversations and forum posts.)
But I agree with your statement that Paizo could create an alternative setting for Pathfinder. It might "dilute" their efforts to support their flagship setting (and product), but an alternative would be nice.
Though I'm not one of them, I'm pretty sure there ARE people out there who like the "new" Forgotten Realms.
|
|
Anyway, If the purpose of D&DN is to attract the Paizo crowed, I think it is doomed to fail. It's gonna be quite a while before D&DN accumulates enough published material and support to make it comparable to Pathfinder in terms of depth, options and all around richness. People who play Pathfinder now will see a nice new system come out, which might be fun - but is it worth transitioning to it? is it worth abandoning the game they have going now, with so many classes, feats, spells etc. for a much shallower game that will take years to close the gap? and while it closes the gap, Pathfinder will continue to evolve.WotC are not aiming to "steal" people back from Paizo, and they shouldn't, because it's a lost cause. They aim to please as many crowed as possible, to increase the potential player pool as much as they can. It's no wonder than that the OP found certain elements of the game to be pleasing in a way that seems directly targeted at him - I'm sure anyone would have found some part of the game to be exactly what they want.
WotC can't take Paizo at their own game, and they are not trying to. They are just trying to create as popular and fun a game as possible, and some aspects of it are there to please the Paizo crowd, because it's a large crowd that needs to be acknowledged.
I'm curious; you're talking as if system preference is all-or-nothing. Has that been your experience?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OSRIC was the first retro-clone, released in 2006.
Pathfinder owes a lot to OSRIC, such as the revelation that the OGL and SRD could be used to create a full rules set, without WotC's permission.
Mutants and Masterminds (2002) and Conan d20 (2003) were the first standalone OGL rulesets, so if anybody owes anything to anyone for doing what was fully permitted by OGL in the first place, it's to Green Ronin and Mongoose.
|
|
OTOH, OSRIC was the first known success at using the SRD to simulate/recreate an older, unsupported rules set. I'm surprised that Green Ronin was able to turn out M&M so soon after 3.0 came out--it seems like quite a departure from 3.0, and not one I would have found intuitively obvious--but their designers were and are very good.
ETA: Or what thejeff said, less than a minute before me. Missed it by *that* much....
|
|
Anyway, If the purpose of D&DN is to attract the Paizo crowed, I think it is doomed to fail. It's gonna be quite a while before D&DN accumulates enough published material and support to make it comparable to Pathfinder in terms of depth, options and all around richness. People who play Pathfinder now will see a nice new system come out, which might be fun - but is it worth transitioning to it? is it worth abandoning the game they have going now, with so many classes, feats, spells etc. for a much shallower game that will take years to close the gap? and while it closes the gap, Pathfinder will continue to evolve.WotC are not aiming to "steal" people back from Paizo, and they shouldn't, because it's a lost cause. They aim to please as many crowed as possible, to increase the potential player pool as much as they can. It's no wonder than that the OP found certain elements of the game to be pleasing in a way that seems directly targeted at him - I'm sure anyone would have found some part of the game to be exactly what they want.
WotC can't take Paizo at their own game, and they are not trying to. They are just trying to create as popular and fun a game as possible, and some aspects of it are there to please the Paizo crowd, because it's a large crowd that needs to be acknowledged.
I'm curious; you're talking as if system preference is all-or-nothing. Has that been your experience?
It happens to be my experience because I get so little game time, that if me and my group choose a system, then that's the game we will be playing for a year at the very least (which is like, 10 marathon sessions). I'm aware of course that for some playing multiple games is the norm, but even for them - why bother getting a couple of expensive hardcover, learning an entire set of relatively complicated and retailed rules, and starting up a new game for these rules is a serious commitment. If the strategy behind D&DN was to cater to Pathfinder players, it'll have to do a pretty impressive job to present itself as an alternative that does mostly the same, only better. That is because the amount of support Pathfinder has overshadows D&DN by a huge amount, and also because as I mentioned above committing to a new version of D&D is a serious decision that involves a lot of time and money spent.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think WotC is trying to compete at all with Paizo. Trying to appease the 3.5e crowd is a ship that has long sailed and it is called the S.S. Pathfinder. I like that WotC are trying to appeal crowd who think that the 3.5e base system is a behemoth that causes headaches rather than generates fun.
I currently refuse to GM any Pathfinder (or 3.5e) games, but will play in a heartbeat. D&DN is allowing me to get back into DMing without me feeling like beating a couple of my players to death with the rulebook each session.
If Paizo & WotC can drag some more people away from the idea that computer games actually can provide a true RPG then it is a HUGE win for the hobby. Using a computer game for RPGing is like playing tennis with your foot handcuffed to your wrist. Possible but not really the best way to play.
There is room enough for both games and more besides!
S.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
Wow, you must not have heard about recent advancements in computer games. They have real physics engines and simulate magic and how it affects the environment (basically variables in the physics engine). So computers can now handle improvisation. They have computer programs that can heuristically learn from past experiences and can write stories and poetry (although they are very simple right now). I wouldn't expect witty conversations or best selling story lines from scratch, but if someone put their mind to it, they could make a pretty good run of a D&D style computer game with modern technology...
The best neural network computer I am aware of has a number of connections equal to a cat brain. Yet this computer can't carryout any functions that even come close to a cats sentience.
So I disagree that ANY current computer can carry out even the smallest fraction of running an RPG that a human can.
Physics engines aren't even vaguely useful for an RPG, they only allow visualizations of a set number of pre-programmed outcomes.
A computer can not handle even something simple like, after describing the players see a town with a wall with a gate and 2 guards, what do you do? The only responses, no matter how pretty looking on the screen, are limited to the person who coded the software and inherit hardware limitations.
Perhaps when SkyNet achieves AI status computers will be good at RPGs, but until then the human mind is a vital component.
S.
Also just for reference here is a recent winner with unrestricted conversation Elbot. Give it a try and see how human it is.
Elbot strikes me as about as coherent as Drunk Uncle from SNL Weekend Update.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also just for reference here is a recent winner with unrestricted conversation Elbot. Give it a try and see how human it is.
Again I disagree. All the examples you gave are limited to an instruction set or specific environment. Sure they 'learn' but true human imagination isn't something they can complete with.
The tests you give links to are a very, very, very small sandbox - and RPG is a VERY large sandbox. The human brain is still the most complex structure in the universe we know of. CPU/GPU's don't even come close.
Again currently a computer purchased for home with store brought RPG software can not provide the depth and interest of a person based RPG.
Not sure why physics engines are important?
As for Elbot.
I typed:
"Two guards stand at a gate near a walled city. What do you do?"
I got:
"I am attempting with the aid of intelligent conversation to get to know you human beings with all your contradictions and idiosyncrasies. Maybe I should have started off with something simpler, like a hamster."
Not exactly the opening for a good evenings roleplaying ;)
Actually no they are not restricted to a specific environment. They are restricted by a specific set of circumstances. In the Unreal tests, they emulate people by missing more often at long range, holding grudges, etc...etc... they emulate human behavior. That would be akin to a virtual DM saying "Ok, guys knock it off." when they start talking about out of game stuff or goofing off and stealing each others pants (in a group of thieves).
The human brain isn't even close to being the most complex structure in the universe.
Elbot is a conversation bot, not a game bot. I'm saying if they leveraged the technology and built specifically toward a virtual DM that it could work.
The physics stuff comes in when the barbarian wants to improvise by picking up a broken pillar and throwing it across the room. The AI would calculate what the...
Are we just supposed to take your word for it?
Regardless of whether or not it's possible, why would we want it? The "physics stuff" in your example isn't exactly inspiring. I can't see why I'd want to have a computer sitting in the DM chair when I could have an actual DM.
Sounds more like some sort of VR. Beam me up Scottie.