I think D&D Next and Pathfinder are both aiming at different audiences. I think it's awesome that D&D Next is something you like. Everything I have seen indicates it's being pitched as a rules lite system that is trying to bring in AD&D players. I don't think Pathfinder should copy (nor do I think they would) D&D Next and aim for the same demographics...both systems will lose out if they have to scrap over the same customer base.You may be right, but something Paizo has to consider is if DnDN starts winning over GM's then players will be sure to follow as you need a GM to run the game and I have found that player's will adapt much quicker to a game system than a GM will. There is a saying I once heard that may apply "Happy wife equals happy life". If you think of the GM as the wife and you make them happy then they will make their players happy.
Yeah, but I think you are assuming that all DMs find 3.5/Pathfinder too complex, which coming from a heavy background in AD&D and similar systems might be biasing your viewpoint.
Less rules comprehensive systems do exist and get play (see Kthulhu' post). Although you can argue that Pathfinder and WOTC can more easily dominate the market, it's probably saying something that a retro clone haven't stolen Paizo's marketshare. I really don't see DnD next pulling in the 3.0/3.5 Pathfinder people. I do see them pulling in the AD&D people like yourself.
In addition...if the rule systems are as flexible as claimed for DnD Next...then more players will have an option to play DnD next with Pathfinder modules and adventure paths. Which could actually expand the customer base for the non rulebook products.
One thing you're going to be seeing is Wizards is actualy focusing on releasing adventures and modules that are compatible with older editions. They've got an adventure written by Ed Greenwood coming out that was made to be compatible with Next, 4th, 3.5, and 2nd edition.Do you mean Murder in Baldur's Gate? Because that's out already, fwiw. It's totally statblock free (with a link to download stats for pretty much any edition of D&D). They make the point that you'll need to tweak encounters to suit the style of your chosen edition (so they dont give numbers of enemies, for example as 4E is based on encountering lots of weaker enemies and 3.5 is more designed around a few, more powerful ones).
It was hard to evaluate, since it's one of those "play this and tell us what happened, then we'll incorporate the collective experience into the ongoing series" things which just dont appeal to me. I thought it was great value though (it came with a 64 page sourcebook and a 32 page adventure enclosed in a landscape four-fold screen with player maps/pictures of Baldur's gate on the outside and a nicely done GM map/key on the inside) and appreciated the return to a focus of more flavor and less mechanics.
By those standards isn't pretty much any module compatible with all edition? Just look up the stats for the monsters and then adjust the numbers and probably in some cases the stats to match your game. And then adjust the treasure and experience accordingly. And some editions you'll level quicker than others, so if the adventures long it will scale even less well.
Sure. I regularly use modules from other systems in the games I play.
I was just saying that's the approach they've taken - there isnt one system the module is designed for specifically but rather a story, some adversaries and some downloadable statblocks. It's a different approach than previously attempted.
I wasnt really speaking about 'compatibility' since prep-time is the really relevant statistic. It takes me as long to prep a PF module if I run it in Swords and Wizardry as it does if I run it in Pathfinder. It doesnt really matter if my prep time is converting or just tweaking statblocks.
Yeah, but I think you are assuming that all DMs find 3.5/Pathfinder too complex, which coming from a heavy background in AD&D and similar systems might be biasing your viewpoint.
The prep time and power gamers has been the biggest issue I have run across in talking to other GM's. Even on blogs and you tube, it is a common theme. However PF is the most supported version of D&D and makes good products and thus owns market share. If 4e had been a different product, we may never have seen PF.
If someone does a great D&D style system that is easier to run and play and yet retains the feel and also gets continued support with great products, then you will see GM's move to that system, probably more than you suspect. I still wonder if its doable, this is where my keen interest in DnDN lies. Can they pull it off?
One example of prep time improvement would be monster stats. Why can't I look at a monsters stats and know everything I need about that monster? Why do I have to look up monster special abilities, feats or spells? Why can't the stat block be 100% self-contained and good to go? This would make plugging monsters into the game much faster.
Also, a self contained NPC statblock would be great as well. Everything you need to know about this NPCs powers right there with the stat block. Powers, feats, spells, all of it included, no need to cross reference anything.
These two things alone would make putting encounters together much faster for the GM. They make sense also. We have enough cross referencing and looking up for players, why not trim the fat for the GM's side? These monsters and npcs are usually cannon fodder so make it fast to use them.
Whilst I share your preferences, by and large, it's worth noting that the fact monsters and PCs are built (more or less) the same is a big draw card for many PF fans. When the 4E/PF comparisons were flying thick and fast, the simplified monster statblocks in 4E were often cited as a negative by people who preferred pathfinder.
I'm sure you're right that some people would abandon PF for a well supported, simple D&D but design issues like that can be a barrier too.
It's hard for us to draw any real conclusions about "what the fans want" since none of us have a statistically significant, unbiased sample of friends.
Whilst I share your preferences, by and large, it's worth noting that the fact monsters and PCs are built (more or less) the same is a big draw card for many PF fans. When the 4E/PF comparisons were flying thick and fast, the simplified monster statblocks in 4E were often cited as a negative by people who preferred pathfinder.
That's interesting, I always thought the 4e monster statblocks were one of the best things about the game. I wonder why people like that monsters are built like PCs? Are these GM's that like this or players? Or Both? And is it so that players can create their own monster characters?
I'm speaking of half remembered (quite acrimonious) conversations a few years ago, so may well be misremembering.
But basically it was a group who like to think of the mechanics as directly representing the laws of the game universe (rather than being a model, where the outcomes are all that matters). So if you learn and cast a spell according to some mechanic, the monster or NPC should use the same. It jarred with those people if in game, whilst generating some effect, the monster rolled 3D6, recharging on a 6 whilst the PC had a daily power.
It wasn't because people liked playing monsters. They liked looking "behind the curtain" and seeing a rudimentary natural laws rather than mechanics designed more with economy in mind.
It wasn't because people liked playing monsters. They liked looking "behind the curtain" and seeing a rudimentary natural laws rather than mechanics designed more with economy in mind.
I agree that the mechanics should be similar if not the same, however I think a huge win for GM's would be self contained stat blocks (monsters and npcs). I have read that Fantasy Craft has a great way they handle them, but I haven't read the rules yet to confirm or deny :-)
I certainly think that treating monsters just like players is a huge waste of time and brain power. The players are the stars of the show, so I can understand more effort going into them, however monsters and npcs are usually there to be thwarted/slayed/mastered/etc. They are set pieces and as such should be quick and easy to add and use in your game.
Maybe 4e went too far off the reservation with their monsters, but having everything in the stat block for easy reference is a benefit that I could see most GM's agreeing on.
If you tried to put everything in they'd be even longer, I reckon.
It's all taste though, that was my point (consistency of mechanics between monsters and PCs has no value to me). D&D:Next is not just a threat. It's also an opportunity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but I think you are assuming that all DMs find 3.5/Pathfinder too complex, which coming from a heavy background in AD&D and similar systems might be biasing your viewpoint.
The prep time and power gamers has been the biggest issue I have run across in talking to other GM's. Even on blogs and you tube, it is a common theme. However PF is the most supported version of D&D and makes good products and thus owns market share. If 4e had been a different product, we may never have seen PF.
The reality is there have been other games that have been simpler for a LONG time. I think you underestimate how many GMs came of age with 3.x and now pathfinder. That is their normal. I GM regularly, and I LIKE pathfinders complexity. Are there people who feel otherwise? Ofcourse, but its not all gms, its just people. Some people like more options and some people like simpler games. Its not player vs gm, its just play style preferences. A simpler game wouldnt support my play style or what I enjoy. And that is ofcourse fine. But you shouldnt assume its all gms that agree with you. Many I am sure, but then again dont forget, people will always find reasons to complain. Gaming after all is dealing with people, even if they are your friends, dealing with people is always the most complicated aspect of gaming. Often the complaining just stems from that.
I dont think the product of 4E is the reason we saw pathfinder, or at least not the biggest part of it. It was the gsl, paizo is in the adventure writing business first and foremost, and they made pathfinder to keep writing the kinds of adventures they want. Those adventures sit in the complex space of 3.x, but it was also a matter of the restrictive nature of 4E's liscencing agreement. Even if 4E wasnt such a radical change to the game, pathfinder probably still would have existed because paizo wanted a secure space to write their adventures.
Also, I dont know about you, but the great adventures paizo writes has drastically reduced my prep time. I have a gaming group loaded with experience gamers that like to optimize, but my prep time has reduced dramtically in the use of the APs, to maybe 2-4 hours per session. And that is mostly practical things like printing notes, drawing maps, preparing miniatures and handouts. Once I've read and know the adventure, my prep time is pretty brief. I even ran a skull and shackles game this past weekend pretty much on the fly.
If someone does a great D&D style system that is easier to run and play and yet retains the feel and also gets continued support with great products, then you will see GM's move to that system, probably more than you suspect. I still wonder if its doable, this is where my keen interest in DnDN lies. Can they pull it off?
I think you are seeing the industry as a zero sum game. I dont think it is. I think there is space for lots of different kinds of games. Are some people going to play dnd next instead of pathfinder? Sure, but that doesnt mean pathfinder should try to be like dnd next. There is room in the industry for lots of different kinds of games. I for one hope that paizo keeps true to what it's been doing, and keeps making the game I love. And if dnd next suits some other people more, I wish them well and hope they enjoy it. I dont need the whole world to play pathfinder to enjoy it.
And honestly, as a company, paizo is actually very DM centric. They focus on adventures and setting. And their fanbase reflects that. Wizards of the coast didnt have that focus. They always focused on rulebooks first, adventures and setting second. It favored players more the GMs. I think alot of GM's recognize and appreciate that. And like I said I am sure many gms and players will shift to dnd next if it is successful, but that doesnt really mean much, thats just the way the industry works. As long as paizo is selling APs like hotcakes I dont expect you will see a shift from them. Dont forget, the actual rules line is a secondary product for them. The AP's are still their bread and butter. I've seen people converting ap's to 4E because they are still the best adventures around. It will probably be an easier convertion to Next. If thats the case, paizo probably wont be all that worried if the RPG line sales dip a little.
Yeah, I agree with kolokotroni.
(Cool name to type, by the way).
It wasn't because people liked playing monsters. They liked looking "behind the curtain" and seeing a rudimentary natural laws rather than mechanics designed more with economy in mind.I agree that the mechanics should be similar if not the same, however I think a huge win for GM's would be self contained stat blocks (monsters and npcs). I have read that Fantasy Craft has a great way they handle them, but I haven't read the rules yet to confirm or deny :-)
I certainly think that treating monsters just like players is a huge waste of time and brain power. The players are the stars of the show, so I can understand more effort going into them, however monsters and npcs are usually there to be thwarted/slayed/mastered/etc. They are set pieces and as such should be quick and easy to add and use in your game.
Maybe 4e went too far off the reservation with their monsters, but having everything in the stat block for easy reference is a benefit that I could see most GM's agreeing on.
That is all about page count, and how tight that is in adventure paths and modules and even in bestiaries. If they put everything in there, there would be alot less room then you think for other things. One of the things I generally do now is copy out stat blocks and alter them with notes and such using the prd. It takes about half an hour of my prep time every session but its a big help when running a session.
Whilst I share your preferences, by and large, it's worth noting that the fact monsters and PCs are built (more or less) the same is a big draw card for many PF fans. When the 4E/PF comparisons were flying thick and fast, the simplified monster statblocks in 4E were often cited as a negative by people who preferred pathfinder.
I'm sure you're right that some people would abandon PF for a well supported, simple D&D but design issues like that can be a barrier too.
It's hard for us to draw any real conclusions about "what the fans want" since none of us have a statistically significant, unbiased sample of friends.
I've seen these discussions as well. Personally I didn't care for the 4E monsters, but that was more a presentation issue than necessarily a statblock one, since I never got a chance to run or play in a 4E game.
I will say, when prepping a game...using the PRD really really speeds up looking up general monster abilities and spells.
It seems like this thread is about both D&DN and PF, but I'll put in my two cents from the PF side of things.
Pathfinder is what it is because it had to maintain backwards-compatibility with D&D 3.5 to succeed. So whatever fundamental complexity that existed in the fundamental structure of D&D 3.5 HAD to exist in Pathfinder.
Years down the road, the PF design team will have more flexibility in designing a revision to the rules than they did during the first go around, because they now have a loyal and sizable fanbase. When that time comes, they will look at their own years of experience (and we saw as early as the PF playtests that they do have their sights set on making bigger changes to the system), and borrow from ALL other RPG systems (not just D&DN) to inform their decisions.
In other words, this isn't a "Pathfinder vs. D&D" issue.
This thread reminds me of the other one out there: "What would YOU release next year to counter D&D Next?", in the sense that we're reacting to an anxiety that D&D will take over and PF needs to "keep up with the times." But Pathfinder is what it is because it HAD to be in 2009.
And now, the reality is that Pathfinder is in the dominant position because it stems from D&D 3.5 and therefore has continuity leading back to the original D&D. It's D&DN who has the unenviable position of having to be "different from the leader" in a market that highly favors tradition and continuity. Pathfinder was hobbled in its ability to innovate and change in its first iteration because it had the ADVANTAGE of simply having to be similar to the system that had dominated for decades.
I'm very excited about what will happen years down the line, when Pathfinder has the twin advantage of being a dominant player AND being able to make bigger changes without having to worry so much about backward-compability -- while incorporating the experience of D&D Next, other tabletop RPGs, and most importantly their own experience and the feedback from their own community.
Also, I dont know about you, but the great adventures paizo writes has drastically reduced my prep time. I have a gaming group loaded with experience gamers that like to optimize, but my prep time has reduced dramtically in the use of the APs, to maybe 2-4 hours per session. And that is mostly practical things like printing notes, drawing maps, preparing miniatures and handouts. Once I've read and know the adventure, my prep time is pretty brief. I even ran a skull and shackles game this past weekend pretty much on the fly.
I have only run APs a few times and usually the results were moderate to poor, however when I borrow ideas from APs and then run my own stuff and basically throw out "forks in the road" and let the players drive the story the results end up being much better. The APs are excellent in that they offer a lot of material to add to your game as needed, or if you like running a straight up module there's that as well.
That is all about page count, and how tight that is in adventure paths and modules and even in bestiaries. If they put everything in there, there would be alot less room then you think for other things. One of the things I generally do now is copy out stat blocks and alter them with notes and such using the prd. It takes about half an hour of my prep time every session but its a big help when running a session.
You admit that you have to take the time to jot notes into the stat blocks, again this is issue I deal with. It would be great if we could bypass this task.
I will say, when prepping a game...using the PRD really really speeds up looking up general monster abilities and spells.
It would be great if we didn't have to take the time to do this during game prep.
I'm very excited about what will happen years down the line, when Pathfinder has the twin advantage of being a dominant player AND being able to make bigger changes without having to worry so much about backward-compability -- while incorporating the experience of D&D Next, other tabletop RPGs, and most importantly their own experience and the feedback from their own community.
You make a lot of excellent points, but this last one for me is the best. I look forward to when Paizo can update Pathfinder and go its own "path" instead of having to be a 3.X clone. Take the best from that system and then make it better.
Also, I dont know about you, but the great adventures paizo writes has drastically reduced my prep time. I have a gaming group loaded with experience gamers that like to optimize, but my prep time has reduced dramtically in the use of the APs, to maybe 2-4 hours per session. And that is mostly practical things like printing notes, drawing maps, preparing miniatures and handouts. Once I've read and know the adventure, my prep time is pretty brief. I even ran a skull and shackles game this past weekend pretty much on the fly.I have only run APs a few times and usually the results were moderate to poor, however when I borrow ideas from APs and then run my own stuff and basically throw out "forks in the road" and let the players drive the story the results end up being much better. The APs are excellent in that they offer a lot of material to add to your game as needed, or if you like running a straight up module there's that as well.
That is all about page count, and how tight that is in adventure paths and modules and even in bestiaries. If they put everything in there, there would be alot less room then you think for other things. One of the things I generally do now is copy out stat blocks and alter them with notes and such using the prd. It takes about half an hour of my prep time every session but its a big help when running a session.You admit that you have to take the time to jot notes into the stat blocks, again this is issue I deal with. It would be great if we could bypass this task.
I dont know if there will ever be a practical way to bypass the task. DMs need to prep, they will always need to prep in a game like pathfinder. There are far more colaborative systems out there, like fiasco, where everyone is involved in creating the story, but if the dm sets up the world and the story and the player's act in it, the dm will have to prep.
And like I said, I dont see what you are asking happening simply because of page count. Paizo has taken great pains to REDUCE the amount of detail they have to put into stat blocks to save space. Its the primary reason the prd exists. So they dont have to write out every non-core ability in detail in stat blocks. I would expect without a drastic shift in the game, what you want wont happen.
I would expect without a drastic shift in the game, what you want wont happen.
You are likely right, but I can give my feedback and hope for a "drastic shift".
I dont know if there will ever be a practical way to bypass the task. DMs need to prep, they will always need to prep in a game like pathfinder. There are far more colaborative systems out there, like fiasco, where everyone is involved in creating the story, but if the dm sets up the world and the story and the player's act in it, the dm will have to prep.
Prepping is part of the game, I am all for prepping. Creating the encounters is a fun part of being a GM. I am talking about streamlining the activity of prepping, not doing away with it altogether or changing it so that everyone participates in it. I would like to be able to add monsters and npcs to my encounters with no cross referencing of rules needed...or very very little cross referencing. That would be a major help in my prep, then I could focus much more on encounter design and a lot less on "If I add this monster what does he bring, oh wait he has this and this and let me see what these do again? Flip pages/mouse click prd, Darn, I can't use him he will destroy my party...let me keep flipping and looking up and clicking and on and on it goes."
I think D&D Next and Pathfinder are both aiming at different audiences. I think it's awesome that D&D Next is something you like. Everything I have seen indicates it's being pitched as a rules lite system that is trying to bring in AD&D players. I don't think Pathfinder should copy (nor do I think they would) D&D Next and aim for the same demographics...both systems will lose out if they have to scrap over the same customer base.You may be right, but something Paizo has to consider is if DnDN starts winning over GM's then players will be sure to follow as you need a GM to run the game and I have found that player's will adapt much quicker to a game system than a GM will. There is a saying I once heard that may apply "Happy wife equals happy life". If you think of the GM as the wife and you make them happy then they will make their players happy.
From my experience with 4E I found it great to GM. It was fast, easy and great to use. Very GM friendly and made making adventure so much less time consuming. Problem was no players followed. A player can always step to be the GM but a GM with out players has no game.
A slimmed down PF would lose customers...
Quite possible.
...it would have to abandon all the 3.5 and PF adventure content.
Hogwash.
Not that it matters...I don't see Paizo doing anything of the sort. I'm firmly in the "Pathfinder is too complicated" camp, but I'm also clearly in the minority.
On C&C -- I love parts of it, but hate some of the stuff carried over from 1E. Things like levitation being a super-powerful offensive spell are deal breakers for me. Yes, I could house-rule the entire spell list, but I'd rather not have to.
It wasn't because people liked playing monsters. They liked looking "behind the curtain" and seeing a rudimentary natural laws rather than mechanics designed more with economy in mind.I agree that the mechanics should be similar if not the same, however I think a huge win for GM's would be self contained stat blocks (monsters and npcs). I have read that Fantasy Craft has a great way they handle them, but I haven't read the rules yet to confirm or deny :-)
I certainly think that treating monsters just like players is a huge waste of time and brain power. The players are the stars of the show, so I can understand more effort going into them, however monsters and npcs are usually there to be thwarted/slayed/mastered/etc. They are set pieces and as such should be quick and easy to add and use in your game.
Maybe 4e went too far off the reservation with their monsters, but having everything in the stat block for easy reference is a benefit that I could see most GM's agreeing on.
I like being able to customize monsters and having really strong guidelines for doing so. So constructing a monster using roughly the same method as PC construction works for me in a big way. Being able to slap Class levels on a monster is one of 3x's greatest strengths. The other great strength is the PFSRD and the ability to cut and paste what you need into an encounter or monster stat block. Hell I'm able to do it on my ipad or sometimes my phone while I'm at work or on the couch.
While I liked the 4E statblocks I didn't really care for the customization rules (they were too loose for my tastes).
Basically, 3x is a complex system but I make it easier for myself to prep my games from almost anywhere as long as I have access to my phone, tablet or laptop. Even when I don't and I have an idea for modifying a monster or encounter I'll still write it out then plug in what I need from the actual rules later.
So in short, yeah I guess I'm not one of the "most GM's" that you mention above. I dont want anything that's too simple and less customizable. Sorry.
If D&DN looks like it has some useful features, I probably will spend money on a book so I can have a nifty hardback for my shelf, and houserule some bits into my PF game. Pathfinder just has so many more options and classes and awesome adventures that I just don't see myself (or my players, who love their guns and animal companions and world-changing magic) switching any time soon.
I suspect that the actual way things will play out is Pathfinder players on these boards borrowing a rule here or there, and that informs the PF designers in the future.
Prepping is part of the game, I am all for prepping. Creating the encounters is a fun part of being a GM. I am talking about streamlining the activity of prepping, not doing away with it altogether or changing it so that everyone participates in it. I would like to be able to add monsters and npcs to my encounters with no cross referencing of rules needed...or very very little cross referencing.
The existance of spell casting... arcane, divine and everything in between... makes your goal impossible without computer aid. A drop in NPC spellcaster just ins't possible without prep and I would argue that spell lists are the majority of prep. But then, an NPC Fighter would be the same considering Feats. You expect all spellcasters to have the same spellbook and fighters to have the same feat progression? Any game system that hopes to streamline that process will lose both customizability and depth in NPCs, even if the rules for building them are not the same as those for building PCs.
One of the things WotC did right in 4e was combining a streamlined system with digital tools. (I cannot comment on the quality of those tools as I never used them as a player). I look forward to Paizo's Game Space and to how they expand on it as times goes by.
Prepping is part of the game, I am all for prepping. Creating the encounters is a fun part of being a GM. I am talking about streamlining the activity of prepping, not doing away with it altogether or changing it so that everyone participates in it. I would like to be able to add monsters and npcs to my encounters with no cross referencing of rules needed...or very very little cross referencing.
The existance of spell casting... arcane, divine and everything in between... makes your goal impossible without computer aid. A drop in NPC spellcaster just ins't possible without prep and I would argue that spell lists are the majority of prep. But then, an NPC Fighter would be the same considering Feats. You expect all spellcasters to have the same spellbook and fighters to have the same feat progression? Any game system that hopes to streamline that process will lose both customizability and depth in NPCs, even if the rules for building them are not the same as those for building PCs.
Yea I agree. Magic as it stands makes this unlikely, so do all the creature type rules, and feats. If there was no need to crossreference anything on a mid level character its statblock would be like 5 or 6 pages long. That isnt an option for any print product. Maybe if we completely moved away from print mediums it would be possible, as digital tools could make that managable with things like spoiler tags, or linked rules, but in print form it literally isnt an option.
One of the things WotC did right in 4e was combining a streamlined system with digital tools. (I cannot comment on the quality of those tools as I never used them as a player). I look forward to Paizo's Game Space and to how they expand on it as times goes by.
Its an interesting Idea. And a few years ago I would have jumped on the whole 'i dont like digital products' bandwagon, but the truth is I'm using pdfs and my kindle more and more. The only thing that stops me from using it completely is the absurd image quality of paizo pdfs. Its to their credit, but it also means a lot of tablets and even computers struggle to allow you to quickly flip through the pdf. The lite pdfs were a step in the right direction, but i'd love to see light version of every product (particularly adventures). But thats sort of a pipe dream.
Though who knows, one day we may all have big digital tablet tables, and game space will operate right on your gaming table. Its not that far away, it will just take someone to do the work at this point.
From my experience with 4E I found it great to GM. It was fast, easy and great to use. Very GM friendly and made making adventure so much less time consuming. Problem was no players followed. A player can always step to be the GM but a GM with out players has no game.
I never wanted to GM 4e because it lost the feel of DnD and the game just didn't click for me...Dragonborn? I don't know exactly what it is, but 4e lost something. Maybe the system is great, I don't know.
On C&C -- I love parts of it, but hate some of the stuff carried over from 1E. Things like levitation being a super-powerful offensive spell are deal breakers for me. Yes, I could house-rule the entire spell list, but I'd rather not have to.
I'm not sure how Levitation is a super powerful offensive weapon, they can only levitate themselves or another being. They can't move horizontally only vertically. and they have to make concentration checks to cast additional spells while levitating.
|
I'm not sure how Levitation is a super powerful offensive weapon, they can only levitate themselves or another being. They can't move horizontally only vertically. and they have to make concentration checks to cast additional spells while levitating.On C&C -- I love parts of it, but hate some of the stuff carried over from 1E. Things like levitation being a super-powerful offensive spell are deal breakers for me. Yes, I could house-rule the entire spell list, but I'd rather not have to.
Float melee monster into air out of its reach. Fill with arrows until dies. Drop to loot. Repeat.
Float melee monster into air out of its reach. Fill with arrows until dies. Drop to loot. Repeat.
That's a great tactic and should work sometimes, but other times the monster will have friends or make its saving throw.
Design Manager
|
Its an interesting Idea. And a few years ago I would have jumped on the whole 'i dont like digital products' bandwagon, but the truth is I'm using pdfs and my kindle more and more. The only thing that stops me...One of the things WotC did right in 4e was combining a streamlined system with digital tools. (I cannot comment on the quality of those tools as I never used them as a player). I look forward to Paizo's Game Space and to how they expand on it as times goes by.
Except for the fact that access to the tools required a subscription and their clunky power card format practically forced you to use the toolset if you didn't want to spend hours handwriting all of your attack and power blocks. No thanks.
I'm not sure how Levitation is a super powerful offensive weapon, they can only levitate themselves or another being. They can't move horizontally only vertically. and they have to make concentration checks to cast additional spells while levitating.
Levitate enemy to maximum range. Drop. Falls are nasty in C&C. For many creatures, it is basically a 2nd level save-or-die. Especially against BBEG fighter types, who in C&C likely won't be making the save...
But levitation was simply an example of the larger point -- some spells brought forward from 1E require attention...attention that I do not wish to devote. :)
Any removed content will result statblocks with broken dependencies. Every spell or feat or archetype you remove requires major reworking of any statblock that uses it, and that renders old content garbage.
All of these modular things are the bulk of what makes the game complicated. You can't simplify without destroying backwards compatibility. Breaking backwards compatibility nearly killed D&D.
Simplify != remove. Many spells could be made mechanically consistent, for example. And dozens of fiddly rules like "you can draw a weapon as a part of a move (but only if you have a BAB of at least +1)" could just die a quiet death. The result would be no more incompatible than Pathfinder currently is with 3.5.
But again, the point is moot. That isn't the direction they're taking. And as they're making money hand over fist, the majority has clearly spoken in favor of the present direction.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
One thing you're going to be seeing is Wizards is actualy focusing on releasing adventures and modules that are compatible with older editions. They've got an adventure written by Ed Greenwood coming out that was made to be compatible with Next, 4th, 3.5, and 2nd edition.Do you mean Murder in Baldur's Gate? Because that's out already, fwiw. It's totally statblock free (with a link to download stats for pretty much any edition of D&D). They make the point that you'll need to tweak encounters to suit the style of your chosen edition (so they dont give numbers of enemies, for example as 4E is based on encountering lots of weaker enemies and 3.5 is more designed around a few, more powerful ones).
It was hard to evaluate, since it's one of those "play this and tell us what happened, then we'll incorporate the collective experience into the ongoing series" things which just dont appeal to me. I thought it was great value though (it came with a 64 page sourcebook and a 32 page adventure enclosed in a landscape four-fold screen with player maps/pictures of Baldur's gate on the outside and a nicely done GM map/key on the inside) and appreciated the return to a focus of more flavor and less mechanics.
Murder in Baldur's Gate was a 64-page sourcebook with a 32-page adventure? Really? Because I played that adventure at Gen Con and it took us 3 hours at the most! Either D&DNext must use ridiculously long encounter descriptions, or our GM must have left a bunch of stuff out.
Murder in Baldur's Gate was a 64-page sourcebook with a 32-page adventure? Really? Because I played that adventure at Gen Con and it took us 3 hours at the most! Either D&DNext must use ridiculously long encounter descriptions, or our GM must have left a bunch of stuff out.One thing you're going to be seeing is Wizards is actualy focusing on releasing adventures and modules that are compatible with older editions. They've got an adventure written by Ed Greenwood coming out that was made to be compatible with Next, 4th, 3.5, and 2nd edition.Do you mean Murder in Baldur's Gate? Because that's out already, fwiw. It's totally statblock free (with a link to download stats for pretty much any edition of D&D). They make the point that you'll need to tweak encounters to suit the style of your chosen edition (so they dont give numbers of enemies, for example as 4E is based on encountering lots of weaker enemies and 3.5 is more designed around a few, more powerful ones).
It was hard to evaluate, since it's one of those "play this and tell us what happened, then we'll incorporate the collective experience into the ongoing series" things which just dont appeal to me. I thought it was great value though (it came with a 64 page sourcebook and a 32 page adventure enclosed in a landscape four-fold screen with player maps/pictures of Baldur's gate on the outside and a nicely done GM map/key on the inside) and appreciated the return to a focus of more flavor and less mechanics.
The 64 page sourcebook has no effect whatsoever on gameplay, outside junk like customs at individual taverns and whatnot, and the 32 page adventure details 3 flow-chart paths (there's no flow chart, but y'know) through said adventure. The majority is background detail you can leave out for a timed event. (Not a complaint, just saying.)
Though who knows, one day we may all have big digital tablet tables, and game space will operate right on your gaming table. Its not that far away, it will just take someone to do the work at this point.
A surface-capable tabletop running their app would not be hard, just expensive.
Dream bigger...
It needs to incorporate a social system similar to Facebook so that the table becomes purely virtual if desired, and allow community interaction beyond a simple forum. It has to incorporate the storefront of the company (and possibly also third parties) so that products can be instantly purchased and used digitally or otherwise (and yet not be pirate-able). It also has to support creation and distribution of user created content that automatically screens for license/copyright problems. It should fully incorporate "sanctioned" games. (PF society, etc) It requires products to be, not just .pdfs, but fully integrated and connected databases that the digital tools connect to. And yet, the systems represented by those databases need to provide the ability to have things toggled on/off for a game... allowed races, classes, etc... AND provide DM and/or game specific rules overrides and additions at the same time, which means the virtual tabletop has to be... flexibile... in how it handles things.
It would be a monstrous undertaking equivalent to developing an MMO and Facebook simultaneously. The capital required for that does not exist in the hobby, nor does the (current) market support it from any sort of investment standpoint. But if you're going to dream... dream big. :)
That doesn't actually have anything whatsoever to do with "the lessons of DDN." If anything consistent wording is a 4e thing.
Nor did your assertion that Pathfinder cannot be meaningfully streamlined without breaking backward compatibility. I simply expressed my opinion you are mistaken and provided concrete examples.
As for Next, it isn't out yet, but I have reason to believe (and I certainly hope) it will be simpler than Pathfinder. If it is, then I would like to see Pathfinder learn from the example. Is that sufficiently on-topic?
It needs to incorporate a social system similar to Facebook so that the table becomes purely virtual if desired, and allow community interaction beyond a simple forum. It has to incorporate the storefront of the company (and possibly also third parties) so that products can be instantly purchased and used digitally or otherwise (and yet not be pirate-able). It also has to support creation and distribution of user created content that automatically screens for license/copyright problems. It should fully incorporate "sanctioned" games. (PF society, etc) It requires products to be, not just .pdfs, but fully integrated and connected databases that the digital tools connect to. And yet, the systems represented by those databases need to provide the ability to have things toggled on/off for a game... allowed races, classes, etc... AND provide DM and/or game specific rules overrides and additions at the same time, which means the virtual tabletop has to be... flexibile... in how it handles things.
*cough* Strange you should mention that.. (well, about 80% of it anyway)
*cough* Strange you should mention that.. (well, about 80% of it anyway)
It needs to incorporate a social system similar to Facebook so that the table becomes purely virtual if desired, and allow community interaction beyond a simple forum. It has to incorporate the storefront of the company (and possibly also third parties) so that products can be instantly purchased and used digitally or otherwise (and yet not be pirate-able). It also has to support creation and distribution of user created content that automatically screens for license/copyright problems. It should fully incorporate "sanctioned" games. (PF society, etc) It requires products to be, not just .pdfs, but fully integrated and connected databases that the digital tools connect to. And yet, the systems represented by those databases need to provide the ability to have things toggled on/off for a game... allowed races, classes, etc... AND provide DM and/or game specific rules overrides and additions at the same time, which means the virtual tabletop has to be... flexibile... in how it handles things.
Well that's a mysterious response. :P Anyone that remembers the summit games network will know that most of the above is not a new idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Murder in Baldur's Gate was a 64-page sourcebook with a 32-page adventure? Really? Because I played that adventure at Gen Con and it took us 3 hours at the most! Either D&DNext must use ridiculously long encounter descriptions, or our GM must have left a bunch of stuff out.One thing you're going to be seeing is Wizards is actualy focusing on releasing adventures and modules that are compatible with older editions. They've got an adventure written by Ed Greenwood coming out that was made to be compatible with Next, 4th, 3.5, and 2nd edition.Do you mean Murder in Baldur's Gate? Because that's out already, fwiw. It's totally statblock free (with a link to download stats for pretty much any edition of D&D). They make the point that you'll need to tweak encounters to suit the style of your chosen edition (so they dont give numbers of enemies, for example as 4E is based on encountering lots of weaker enemies and 3.5 is more designed around a few, more powerful ones).
It was hard to evaluate, since it's one of those "play this and tell us what happened, then we'll incorporate the collective experience into the ongoing series" things which just dont appeal to me. I thought it was great value though (it came with a 64 page sourcebook and a 32 page adventure enclosed in a landscape four-fold screen with player maps/pictures of Baldur's gate on the outside and a nicely done GM map/key on the inside) and appreciated the return to a focus of more flavor and less mechanics.
Yes.
What system were you using?
That's interesting, I always thought the 4e monster statblocks were one of the best things about the game. I wonder why people like that monsters are built like PCs? Are these GM's that like this or players? Or Both? And is it so that players can create their own monster characters?
There are two reasons I don't play 4e:
1) The near requirement to use a battlemap2) Not just a lack of, but an utter disregard for, internal consistency.
Now, keep in mind I don't think 3rd edition/Pathfinder is one of the best RPGs around, but it's good, and it's so much more GM friendly than 4e is because everything is consistent and built in the correct order.
For example, lets say I'm trying to create a new creature for a game I'm running:
In 3rd/PF, I'm asking myself questions, like, "how strong is it? how tough? how smart? how does it eat/breed/survive and what special abilities would it have as a result?" All of the answers to these questions have a direct impact on the creature's capabilities. A strong creature hits more often and harder than a weaker one. A smarter one is more skilled, etc. A creature that eats metal might have some ability to sense metal or dissolve it or something interesting.
In 4e, I could ask "how strong is it?" (or any of the other questions I asked above) and the answer is "it doesn't matter at all." The only relevant questions are:
1) What level is the creature?
2) What role does the creature play in tactical combat (skirmisher, artillery, etc.)
3) How many should the PCs fight at once to create an appropriate challenge (minion, standard, elite, solo)?
In 3rd/PF, you make a creature and then the PCs interact with it. In 4e, you plan an interaction, and then design something that can be interacted with in that fashion.
In 3rd/PF, you say, "I want a manticore" and then you think, "how would this creature fight? I guess it would fly up high and throw tail spikes...."
In 4e, you say, "I want an artillery enemy that flies up and shoots the PCs" and then you build one and call it a manticore. It's all backwards.
And nothing is absolute, either. A barrel filled with water and then frozen dropped onto an enemy from above deals different amounts of damage based on the level of the PC dropping it. Or, alternatively, you have to assign a "level" to the barrel, and try to make sure lower or higher level characters never try to use one.
As a GM, I need internal consistency. I want the rules and the world to mesh in a way that makes sense, and when I wing something, I want it to match what it ought to be, not fit the challenge level the PCs should be facing.
I was a huge fan of the Next playtest through the first two or three iterations (the first was almost a perfect start, in my mind), and bounded accuracy would have been the nail in the coffin of "game prep" for me, but then they started adding 4e-style monsters abilities (oh, all hobgoblins get this weird discipline ability because, you know, monsters have to have interesting combat abilities and "identity branding.") and they started losing me. It wasn't the only factor that let me to stop following the playtest, but it was a big one.
Also, I dont know about you, but the great adventures paizo writes has drastically reduced my prep time. I have a gaming group loaded with experience gamers that like to optimize, but my prep time has reduced dramtically in the use of the APs, to maybe 2-4 hours per session. And that is mostly practical things like printing notes, drawing maps, preparing miniatures and handouts. Once I've read and know the adventure, my prep time is pretty brief. I even ran a skull and shackles game this past weekend pretty much on the fly.
Holy crap, 2-4 hours of prep time per session? I would kill myself! No way would I GM if I had to spend that much time. Is that what other GMs really do?
Crap, I prep maybe 2-4 hours per campaign, and that's really just for 3rd/PF because monsters are not standardized like in most other games (for example, in Old World of Darkness, every human no matter what has 7 health levels, and in the new world of darkness, it's size, which is almost always 5, plus stamina, which is a number between 1 and 5, or in Savage Worlds, my favorite RPG, everyone can take 3 wounds--nobody has more). When I run other games, I have zero prep time and can run the game naked (or at least with no paper or books in front of me--just dice).
One of the many reasons I hate running other people's pre-written campaigns, actually, is the prep time required to read it all. Boo! I'd rather run it all straight from my brain to the table. That is harder to do with 3rd/PF, but literally impossible with 4e.
I dont know if there will ever be a practical way to bypass the task. DMs need to prep, they will always need to prep in a game like pathfinder. There are far more colaborative systems out there, like fiasco, where everyone is involved in creating the story, but if the dm sets up the world and the story and the player's act in it, the dm will have to prep.
I just don't agree, and feel that I am living proof of it. I do admit you have to prep a little for a game like PF/3rd, but the less abstract a game gets, the less prep you need until you need none at all. Arbitrary things like "spell levels", "classes," and "hit dice/levels" still require some work, but that's the only snag.
Creating the encounters is a fun part of being a GM.
To me, "creating an encounter" is anathema, and is exactly the problem I had with 4e. I don't create encounters, the PCs do. I create the world, and the PCs interact with it--I do not get to (nor do I want to) choose how they interact with them. The encounters in my game flow naturally from the events around them and are never planned in advance.
I would like to be able to add monsters and npcs to my encounters with no cross referencing of rules needed...or very very little cross referencing.
Play a game with less arbitrary rules. New World of Darkness, Savage Worlds, Godlike, etc., have more consistent rules that lend themselves very well to winging it.
"If I add this monster what does he bring, oh wait he has this and this and let me see what these do again? Flip pages/mouse click prd, Darn, I can't use him he will destroy my party...let me keep flipping and looking up and clicking and on and on it goes."
You probably would like running 4e, then, if you're concerned with building an encounter and keeping things in the "challenge zone." I personally dislike the very premise of a "challenge based game."
From my experience with 4E I found it great to GM. It was fast, easy and great to use. Very GM friendly and made making adventure so much less time consuming.
I think I want to clarify this a little--4e is not GM friendly, it's new GM friendly. It's very easy to pick it up and run it if you have no clue what you're doing. If you already know, however, you have to unlearn so much...
The existance of spell casting... arcane, divine and everything in between... makes your goal impossible without computer aid.
Really? What if you just know the spell lists really well? I don't have any trouble running spellcasters on the fly, though my personal aesthetics involve fewer spellcasters and more innately supernatural enemies than is normally expected, I suppose.
Let me just add at the end here that I'm not edition warring or anything. I actually don't think 4e was a bad game--I enjoy PCing in it just fine, possibly even more than I enjoy PCing in 3rd/PF. There's just so many more options for characters that it's just staggering and very awesome. I just can't stand running it, and I don't think I will ever try to do so again.
I GM'd Champions for five years, back when it was one of the most complex systems in the world. I tried running a 3.0 game once. Never again. Life is too freaking short to spend an hour making a character that will last for three rounds. And at least Champions was built on a basic chassis that made sense- it was easy to cost out effects. Pathfinder effects are basically pulled out of someone's rear, because there is no parity between cost and effect, you can't judge power levels between classes, EL is a joke, there's weird synchronicies between different abilities... it's a huge mess. I have yet to be in a Pathfinder game where a GM didn't get something massively wrong, and that was just in the areas I knew about.
As for " making the world not encounters", yeah right. How many GMs have 1st level characters encounter adult black dragons? "Well dragons do get their wealth by raiding towns. Now make new characters." I've known only one GM who didn't carefully sculpt the opposition to match the characters, PCs in that game tended to live less than half an hour. Even with the mess that EL is, it's a better guideline than "This monster seems neat, let's see how many seconds the PCs last against it."