|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This may come as a surprise, but my biggest complaint is just the lack of fluff on most cards.
For instance, Merisiel's extra die when fighting alone should actually be called "sneak attack". That's what it is. That's what experienced Pathfinder players will call it. But leaving that off the card leaves out the non-RPG gamers from that shared experience of knowing that this is the RPG inspiration for her ability.
And then there are some where the RPG inspiration for certain things were lost on me until someone pointed them out. For instance, losing a fight to a ghoul not only causes damage, but also makes you end your turn immediately. Why? Once someone pointed out that it was because the character had been paralyzed by the ghoul, it made perfect sense, but I missed that at first glance. People who don't play Pathfinder or other RPGs with this ghoul ability will completely miss that information. Again, a few words of fluff could have gone a long way towards explaining the reason behind the mechanic, and immersing players in the game world.
Yep, a few more splashes of ink on each card would have made a big difference.
I guess we'll need to start a wiki.
Put all the cards on there. Add all the errata. Have a spoiler section where people discuss the tactics. Have a background section where people can explain the details and background of the characters and effects.
You know, most video games now days have easter eggs and allusions to other games, shows, movies, books, and real events in them, but never explicitly call them out. Borderlands 2, for instance, has tons of easter eggs, from the Ninja Turtles, to Game of Thrones, to Downton Abbey. Finding, and recognizing, those hidden gems can be half the fun of completing a mission.
|
I think this may have been deliberate on the part of the designers, to distance PACG from the Original Best-Selling Fantasy RPG which it ultimately descends from. It also has the benefit of avoiding any nasty legal ramifications with the OGL.
A few examples which made me think this:
"Force Missile" instead of "Magic Missile"
"Lightning Touch" instead of "Shocking Grasp"
"Xulgath" instead of "Troglodyte"
I was wondering what was going on with that Troglodyte. ^^
|
|
This isn't an easter egg hunt. We're not talking about obscure references to other sources. We're talking about the game explaining itself.
Why bother giving cards names and pictures, if you're not going to bother explaining what they mean? They could have just printed a bunch of plain, black and white cards with no names, some game mechanics text, and everything is referenced by card number. But they wanted to make a Pathfinder game, with details that provide some sort of immersion. So shouldn't that go beyond just a name on the card and actually include 10-20 words of explanation to go with it?
Heck, the cards from Chance and Community Chest in Monopoly provide more immersion than the ones in this game. When I win $10, I know it's from second prize in a beauty contest.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In addition to avoiding OGL issues, there's also just not a lot of room on a lot of those cards—you'll find that as the game advances, cards get more and more complex. Sure, there might be room to label Black Fang's acid attack as an acid breath weapon, but there's no room for nothin' on Karzoug the Claimer. And unlike traditional flavor text, labeling powers is an all-or-nothing proposition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
h4ppy's got the right idea. If someone officially or unofficially wrote a little bit about the characters, their basic strategies, and just offhandedly referred to certain abilities by certain descriptors (such as sneak attack), I think many people would enjoy the additional flavor. How those people would find it is another problem whose solution I'm glad isn't my job.
But yes. People like flavor. I like flavor too. Go easy on Vic, for the most part the card names combined with the mechanics do most of the explaining for most cards. Complaining that hero abilities aren't fully explained is like pointing out that the go to jail space and card in Monopoly don't explain why you're doing time. I know why I win 1d4 items, it's because I opened a treasure chest. I also know why longswords make me better at fighting. I don't know why a shoe collects properties or why dogs have to pay rent.
Ya, room on the card is the problem (although they seem to be able to fit some on LotR and MtG cards).
I had to explain to new players all the time "That is because she is casting a blessing"; "that is because he can shoot a ranged weapon to help you"; and so on.
Just a teny-tiny "Bless" or such before the ability would go a long way towards far more game flavor.
Developer
|
For more background on the iconic characters, check out the Meet the Iconics series on the Paizo blog!
Thanks for the link Rob. Some interesting back story there.
...and teasers for who might turn up in AP#2 next year?!?
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
For more background on the iconic characters, check out the Meet the Iconics series on the Paizo blog!
Does the character which your avatar is based on have a backstory yet? :-P
They did the same thing in the minis line. Xulgath is the troglodyte name for their race, according to the PFRPG Bestiary.
Doesn't the OGL only cover RPG products (or something)?
I seem to remember similar issues arising even with novels.
I guess my biggest complaint is that they based the characters on the iconics rather than let us make our own characters with their own stories. I mean... I really don't give a hoot about Harsk, but I want to play a Ranger.
This almost kept one of my friends from even trying the game. She wanted to play a Fighter so I handed her Valeros. When she asked for the female fighter instead and I said there wasn't one she didn't want to play anymore. I talked her into it and she had fun, but how hard would it have been to just give us "class" cards instead of pre-made characters and let us name/imagine our own heroes?
Use the character sheet PDF instead of the card and use any mini you like to go with it.
I prefer using the minis as tokens over the cards anyways, and you don't actually *need* the cards with the rules, the character sheets are just fine.
I guess my biggest complaint is that they based the characters on the iconics rather than let us make our own characters with their own stories. I mean... I really don't give a hoot about Harsk, but I want to play a Ranger.
This almost kept one of my friends from even trying the game. She wanted to play a Fighter so I handed her Valeros. When she asked for the female fighter instead and I said there wasn't one she didn't want to play anymore. I talked her into it and she had fun, but how hard would it have been to just give us "class" cards instead of pre-made characters and let us name/imagine our own heroes?
There are blank character sheets that you can use to create any character you want. I don't know if they're on this website, but there are some on BGG for sure: http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/93931/pathfinder-adventure-card-game-char acter-sheet-p
Copy in the powers of the basic iconic character, add your own image and name and away you go.
|
|
There are blank character sheets that you can use to create any character you want. I don't know if they're on this website, but there are some on BGG for sure: http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/93931/pathfinder-adventure-card-game-char acter-sheet-pCopy in the powers of the basic iconic character, add your own image and name and away you go.
This, not to mention the full character sheets that are now available as PDF downloads, really should be included in the base game box.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
They did the same thing in the minis line. Xulgath is the troglodyte name for their race, according to the PFRPG Bestiary.Doesn't the OGL only cover RPG products (or something)?
I seem to remember similar issues arising even with novels.
The OGL has no inherent media restrictions. We just find that it's not ideal for every project, so we tend to avoid it outside of RPG products.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I guess my biggest complaint is that they based the characters on the iconics rather than let us make our own characters with their own stories. I mean... I really don't give a hoot about Harsk, but I want to play a Ranger.
This almost kept one of my friends from even trying the game. She wanted to play a Fighter so I handed her Valeros. When she asked for the female fighter instead and I said there wasn't one she didn't want to play anymore. I talked her into it and she had fun, but how hard would it have been to just give us "class" cards instead of pre-made characters and let us name/imagine our own heroes?
The bottom line is that cards need art, and we have really good art depicting the character classes we're offering, and those very same characters appear constantly in the artwork. Which is to say, whether or not we called him Valeros, the fighter card was going to have a picture of Valeros on it. As it happens, a lot of people really like our iconics.
That's not to say that it rules out the possibility of future, more customizable character options, though....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lack of fluff?!
I House Rule that you narrate your own fluff as you play. Heaps of fun. Rather than no GM everyone is the GM.