| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoyed the DL novels. It did not like the setting for games.
Once Hickman and Weiss turned it over to others it lost it's "magic".
I loved Planescape, I've never read The Module though. I think that the setting was abandoned was telling though. They didn't know what to do with it or they'd lost the people who did. The Fan Website Planewalker kept me entertained for a long time. The novels were weird and modules were just bad, but the setting stuff was awesome.
I loved the Forgotten Realms, the Grey Box did it.
The setting was brilliant. The Modules were good. The novels were decent to above average. They made a mistake early though, they let novels radically alter the setting. Evereska destroyed, etc. That was a mistake. Earth shattering alterations should be the province of players.
Then there was "Canon", the canon nazis got out of hand. They'd sit at your table and argue with you about you're own game. They'd argue with designers, heck they'd argue with Greenwood I'd wager if he didn't use that weird charm and just shut them down.
WotC wrecked that setting but it was inevitable.
The beauty of Greyhawk is stasis. It's always the same year until you play.
I liked Basic D&D
I wanted more so I bought Hardbacks.
I liked 2ed, it was a Realms system! Cleaned up the mess in AD&D.
I missed most of 3.0 but I bought it.
Then I bought 3.5, because I needed too. I bought a lot of 3.5. Too much.
I played 4.0. I got rooked into running the showcase at the FLGS. I bought the PHB. That's it.
I bought Pathfinder, when RotRL came out. The first really good module I'd read in a decade other than the Red Hand super module.
Then I bought some setting stuff.
Then I bought a campaign Hardcover.
Then I bought more setting stuff.
Then bought a CORE rulebook.
Then I bought some setting books.
What's important to note that with Paizo I'm buying more fluff than crunch.
With WotC it was Crunch over fluff. They got bad at fluff. They cranked out crunch. More Crunch than I ever used. I didn't need it.
They did it with 4e I'm told.
Crunch is not what I need. Nor what I really want.
D&D Next may be slick, simple and easy. But they are in the Rule Buisness.
Paizo is in the Game Buisness. Their approach is more natural.
For rules; I like the OGL. It's easy and I can look up ANYTHING that comes up without having to drop $40.
So far Golarion isn't perfect, but it's nice and adaptive and varied.
So far Paizo has avoided the missteps of WotC(Hasbro). They honestly engage with customers, even if it's me and SKR arguing and being snarky. They respond to the needs of customers instead of telling me what I want.
I played D&D Minitures Skirmish. I got burned there and the managers of the Mini line knew it, and there was nothing they could really do about it.
I've had a total of One problem in all my time with Paizo, and Vic fixed it himself in lime 30 minutes and Lisa was aware of it before I knew it was done.
Customer Service is a lost art in America.
Those who understand it, succeed.
[Pretty much everything I'm thinking too...]
Apart from that I liked Dragonlance. On the other hand, I haven't strayed very much past the original trilogy :) From what I've read of the other ages, I probably wouldn't enjoy those that much.
I never felt Dragonlance was a very good game setting. I really WANTED to like it... but it never felt like there was any room in the world for MY stories.
I enjoyed the DL novels. It did not like the setting for games.
True. DL was originally intended as a series of modules and of novels. I never seriously planned to run a game on Krynn. Even when I collected lots of the gaming material, it was mostly to enhance my understanding of the novels (although it could inspire you to create your own setting).
The beauty of Greyhawk is stasis. It's always the same year until you play.
Um... what? I must be misunderstanding you. Greyhawk's been changing constantly. Materials like "Fate of Istus", "Greyhawk Wars", and "Die, Vecna, Die" made significant changes in the setting, requiring new editions to get all the updates. For instance, the "World of Greyhawk" boxed set was set, I think, in the late 570s CY. (My set is at home, where I can't look it up.) "From The Ashes" shows a very different world in 585 CY, due to the aforementioned Greyhawk Wars. "The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer" shows lots of changes from that, leading up to 591 CY.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The beauty of Greyhawk is stasis. It's always the same year until you play.Um... what? I must be misunderstanding you. Greyhawk's been changing constantly. Materials like "Fate of Istus", "Greyhawk Wars", and "Die, Vecna, Die" made significant changes in the setting, requiring new editions to get all the updates. For instance, the "World of Greyhawk" boxed set was set, I think, in the late 570s CY. (My set is at home, where I can't look it up.) "From The Ashes" shows a very different world in 585 CY, due to the aforementioned Greyhawk Wars. "The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer" shows lots of changes from that, leading up to 591 CY.
I think this underscores that Greyhawkers typically take a different approach to the campaign setting and canon than fans of other published settings (with the possible exception of the Third Imperium for Traveller). With early materials being fairly sketchy for a long time, Greyhawk GMs have thrived on taking a framework of a campaign world and making it their own. And that includes feeling confident about accepting or flat out rejecting canonical developments that come later like the Greyhawk Wars or anything to do with the overuse of Vecna.
I loved Planescape, I've never read The Module though. I think that the setting was abandoned was telling though.
PS is definitely a niche setting for a very particular kind of D&Der. I've been writing a setting conversion off and on, because getting an official setting update is the epitome of pipe dreams.
(Also I don't like everything about PS, even aside from The Module Which Shall Not Be Named, so writing my own conversion leaves me free to change what I don't like!)
So far Paizo has avoided the missteps of WotC(Hasbro). They honestly engage with customers, even if it's me and SKR arguing and being snarky. They respond to the needs of customers instead of telling me what I want.
I give JJ & Co. props for being honest with their customers, but that honesty has more or less ensured that I'll never buy a PF book. Maybe an AP that I can convert, sometime when I have more money to throw around. Paizo is responding to someone's needs, but they ain't mine. :/
I can't imagine a game company telling anyone what they want, though I've heard this complaint aimed at various companies before. I mean, they all do their best to sell their games, but telling us what we want? Sounds like a fan-reaction to whichever company makes the game that he or she happens to not like.
For instance, the "World of Greyhawk" boxed set was set, I think, in the late 570s CY. (My set is at home, where I can't look it up.)
I'm home now. It's 576.
Um... what? I must be misunderstanding you. Greyhawk's been changing constantly. Materials like "Fate of Istus", "Greyhawk Wars", and "Die, Vecna, Die" made significant changes in the setting, requiring new editions to get all the updates. For instance, the "World of Greyhawk" boxed set was set, I think, in the late 570s CY. (My set is at home, where I can't look it up.) "From The Ashes" shows a very different world in 585 CY, due to the aforementioned Greyhawk Wars. "The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer" shows lots of changes from that, leading up to 591 CY.
The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer was the holy grail of campaign books for me. I miss Greyhawk dearly, it was my 3rd edition setting of choice.
To be perfectly honest, Ed Greenwood as well as the RSEs wrecked FR for me, and I was a huge fan since the Grey Box. I even remember him doing some kinda article on WotCs website about roofing in FR or something like that. I remember thinking, ok, he did some roofing in real life (or just a fan of architecture maybe)... does FR really need an article like that?
Something like this
That's when I knew the ideas dried up.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you misunderstood Ed then, Sunderstone. He has always pushed for the little details. Stuff like clothing and fashion, food and its preparation, politicking, intrigue between temples, merchant houses, wizards and nobles, trade routes, building styles, plants, gems, and so on and so forth. I believe it's the main reason the Realms have such a following, because these details made the world feel alive. Rural architecture is certainly not a deviation from form.
I'm fine with most of your examples Sissyl, definitely the politicking and flora and fauna, but roofing and food preparation really aren't necessary. I'd rather have more useful fluff and crunch.
A brief blurb about architecture is to be expected in a sourcebook trying to flesh out a country, town, people, or what not. But the long winded example in my link is abit boring. YMMV of course.
The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer was the holy grail of campaign books for me. I miss Greyhawk dearly, it was my 3rd edition setting of choice.
Yeah, the first time I ever got hooked on a D&D campaign setting, it was while reading the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fine with most of your examples Sissyl, definitely the politicking and flora and fauna, but roofing and food preparation really aren't necessary. I'd rather have more useful fluff and crunch.
A brief blurb about architecture is to be expected in a sourcebook trying to flesh out a country, town, people, or what not. But the long winded example in my link is abit boring. YMMV of course.
I actually found that kind of interesting... but honestly I wouldn't consider it 'realmslore' or anything... It sounds pretty useful for ANY 'medieval fantasy' game.
We were just talking the other day about what a thatch roof was like and how hard it would be to get through...
Personally I like seeing things that I have zero knowledge about, but should be common knowledge to my character. Ancient roofing techniques actually fit that bill pretty well :)
YMMV of course. I wouldn't want a whole sourcebook or anything on the subject... but the occasional writeup or article seems pretty cool :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never felt Dragonlance was a very good game setting. I really WANTED to like it... but it never felt like there was any room in the world for MY stories.I enjoyed the DL novels. It did not like the setting for games.True. DL was originally intended as a series of modules and of novels. I never seriously planned to run a game on Krynn. Even when I collected lots of the gaming material, it was mostly to enhance my understanding of the novels (although it could inspire you to create your own setting).
The beauty of Greyhawk is stasis. It's always the same year until you play.Um... what? I must be misunderstanding you. Greyhawk's been changing constantly. Materials like "Fate of Istus", "Greyhawk Wars", and "Die, Vecna, Die" made significant changes in the setting, requiring new editions to get all the updates. For instance, the "World of Greyhawk" boxed set was set, I think, in the late 570s CY. (My set is at home, where I can't look it up.) "From The Ashes" shows a very different world in 585 CY, due to the aforementioned Greyhawk Wars. "The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer" shows lots of changes from that, leading up to 591 CY.
Here's how Greyhawk fans from back in the day look at it. Anything after Gygax getting kicked out of TSR doesn't count. Period. Never happened. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I give JJ & Co. props for being honest with their customers, but that honesty has more or less ensured that I'll never buy a PF book. Maybe an AP that I can convert, sometime when I have more money to throw around. Paizo is responding to someone's needs, but they ain't mine. :/
Of course they're not responding to your needs. They're respoding to mine and I'm keeping them busy.
I can't imagine a game company telling anyone what they want, though I've heard this complaint aimed at various companies before. I mean, they all do their best to sell their games, but telling us what we want? Sounds like a fan-reaction to whichever company makes the game that he or she happens to not like.
You've never heard of advertising? Companies tell people what they need and want all the time.
I can't imagine a game company telling anyone what they want, though I've heard this complaint aimed at various companies before. I mean, they all do their best to sell their games, but telling us what we want? Sounds like a fan-reaction to whichever company makes the game that he or she happens to not like.You've never heard of advertising? Companies tell people what they need and want all the time.
One thing I have no problem with is a game company telling me this is what I get, take it or leave it. I always have the option to leave it :) At the end of the day, they're creatives and I believe in giving creatives free reign to make whatever they feel like making, and hope that someone out there wants to buy it.
I don't think any game company owes it to their customers to adapt to demand - that's their call, the only thing they possibly owe it to is to themselves if they want to please more customers and make more money ;) I still see it as their own call where to place that balance between their vision and profit, though.
I've seen very little in the way of "hard sell" from any game companies though. None of the "you MUST have this, you NEED this, you can't live WITHOUT this!" of other industries, it's more "look at all these cool things we make!" The worst I think I've seen in this industry is the forced "new editions" of things (and I'm looking at you, GW, as by far the worst offender here) in the knowledge that the customer base has little choice but to keep up in order to keep playing with one another. Even then, I still have that "take it or leave it" choice - which is probably why I've left it in so many cases :)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, I won't be switching; I might take a look at the free online rules, but I'm pretty happy with Pathfinder. Besides, it looks like Next is neither as modular as promised nor "complex" enough for my group (and I hate "tinkering" with systems). The core system may be simple and fast to DM, and therefore more beginner-friendly than PF, but that's not what I'm looking for in RPGs.
No, I won't be switching; I might take a look at the free online rules, but I'm pretty happy with Pathfinder. Besides, it looks like Next is neither as modular as promised nor "complex" enough for my group (and I hate "tinkering" with systems). The core system may be simple and fast to DM, and therefore more beginner-friendly than PF, but that's not what I'm looking for in RPGs.
Considering the newest sets of info coming from Origins, it's likely that D&D:Next will have a LOT of modularity coming down the line. From conversion guides, THAC0 adjustments / uses, different healing levels and how rest is probably treated, to a wide approach to sub-classes and customization (because multiclass is level-by-level like in 3e) it's likely to be just as modular as 3.5 and probably a lot more than 4E.
As for complexity, I just don't think it's honestly fair to compare Next's unreleased rules yet with the VAST amount of info and material that any edition of D&D (Pathfinder included) has produced. From what I've read, we're getting 12 classes into the PHB (Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Mage, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, & Warlock) along with multiple build options for each. Further, I believe they said the usual races will make it (Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling) plus others like the Half-orc, Gnome, Tiefling, and Dragonborn. Then there will be Feats and other sub-systems that help differentiate your characters from one another.
Will all of this equal to Pathfinder's system? No, probably not. But give it time and, knowing WotC, we'll see many supplements over the next two years that probably rival PF in the amount of customization allowed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tieflings and Dragonborn are supposed to be selling points in the PHB?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Especially Dragonborn always felt very Meh. Getting them shoehorned into Forgotten Realms was pathetic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Endless silly playable races is never a good thing, in any edition
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it is anything like the final playtest, the races will be: dwarf, elf, halfling, human; dragonborn, drow, gnome, half-elf, half-orc, kender, tiefling, warforged. Everything after the ; being "unusual races". Not sure if they will all be in the first PHB or they do the BS like they did with 4th edition and split them up. Honestly not sure why they continue to focus on just the tiefling when there's a "good" counterpart to them.
My biggest gripe with the dragonborn is their look. None of the art for that race made them look appealing to me. Of course, the new art for the tiefling was just bad as well.
Honestly not sure why they continue to focus on just the tiefling when there's a "good" counterpart to them.
Because the edgy misunderstood badass type is more popular than the paladin-as-race type? :D
Because tradition? (Even the original Planescape tieflings came in the campaign's player guide, whereas the aasimar didn't come until much later in the PS Monstrous Compendium 2.)
Not that those are good reasons, mind, or that the omission of the aasimar (aka 4e deva) doesn't offend my sense of symmetry as well...
Since the Warforged are in the DMG, I have a hunch that Nentir Vale races like the Asmodean-style Tiefling and Dragonborn will appear there too... Granted, this is a guess. But, I guess we'll find out in a month or two. That said, even though I hate 'em both like there's no tomorrow, I want them somewhere in the game; so folks who liked them can be happy. But, woe to the fool who brings one to my table, for they will likely not last the night! ;)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kender? KENDER? Ugh.
As to dragonborn, they're the "PC gone mad" race. Seriously, a reptile race with mammaries is about the dumbest thing I ever saw.
Drow and tieflings.
All of the above is making me think Next might be "D&D, Annoying Player Edition".
Still going to give the mechanics a shot, even if I have to 86 half of the races published.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Especially Dragonborn always felt very Meh. Getting them shoehorned into Forgotten Realms was pathetic.
Fourth Edition Forgotten Realms was pathetic. Period.
Third was almost pathetic, Second was kind of pathetic (and the beginning of the "new edition, let's have a cataclysmic event" nonsense - yet another reason 2e is so sad to me).
Give me the original gray box and be done with it!
Kender? KENDER? Ugh.As to dragonborn, they're the "PC gone mad" race. Seriously, a reptile race with mammaries is about the dumbest thing I ever saw.
Drow and tieflings.
All of the above is making me think Next might be "D&D, Annoying Player Edition".
Still going to give the mechanics a shot, even if I have to 86 half of the races published.
It's not like you have to use all races. Several are going to be options in the DMG iirc, not the PHB. They're just covering all the possibilities. I'd rather have them do that than leave standard races out for later books...
But yeah, I can miss Kender, Drow (as a PC race), Dragonborn, and Tieflings. Warforged too, but I'm pretty sure they show up in the DMG.
The DMG sounds interesting btw, kind of a combination of an old DMG and Unearthed Arcana (optional systems etc.).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Especially Dragonborn always felt very Meh. Getting them shoehorned into Forgotten Realms was pathetic.Fourth Edition Forgotten Realms was pathetic. Period.
Third was almost pathetic, Second was kind of pathetic (and the beginning of the "new edition, let's have a cataclysmic event" nonsense - yet another reason 2e is so sad to me).
Give me the original gray box and be done with it!
Words of wisdom! That's my default campaign setting, time and again.
Words of wisdom! That's my default campaign setting, time and again.Especially Dragonborn always felt very Meh. Getting them shoehorned into Forgotten Realms was pathetic.Fourth Edition Forgotten Realms was pathetic. Period.
Third was almost pathetic, Second was kind of pathetic (and the beginning of the "new edition, let's have a cataclysmic event" nonsense - yet another reason 2e is so sad to me).
Give me the original gray box and be done with it!
Mine's a mash up of 1e - 3e (with some of the almost passable ideas from 4e used in different ways), but the OGB Set is truly a thing of beauty. Here's to hoping 5e's Realms can attempt to replicate its splendor.
A wild guess on my part is that reason could be that they are giving preference to what has been core races in the past. Tieflings were a PHB race in 4e. Aasimars/devas were never PHB races.Honestly not sure why they continue to focus on just the tiefling when there's a "good" counterpart to them.Because the edgy misunderstood badass type is more popular than the paladin-as-race type? :D
Because tradition? (Even the original Planescape tieflings came in the campaign's player guide, whereas the aasimar didn't come until much later in the PS Monstrous Compendium 2.)
Not that those are good reasons, mind, or that the omission of the aasimar (aka 4e deva) doesn't offend my sense of symmetry as well...
Technically, aasimar/deva WAS a PHB race. Deva (4th edition's version of aasimar) is detailed in the PHB2 for 4th edition, along with the gnome, goliath, half-orc and shifter. PHB3 added the githzerai, wilden, minotaur, and shardmind.
As for the dragonborn comment, I agree that reptiles with breasts is rather absurd. I have no problem with them as a race, but their art (this includes the breastified reptile thing) I just couldn't get past.
Pathfinder. That's all I have to say.
Deva was not a core race, it was in an extra supplement (PHB2).A wild guess on my part is that reason could be that they are giving preference to what has been core races in the past. Tieflings were a PHB race in 4e. Aasimars/devas were never PHB races.Honestly not sure why they continue to focus on just the tiefling when there's a "good" counterpart to them.Because the edgy misunderstood badass type is more popular than the paladin-as-race type? :D
Because tradition? (Even the original Planescape tieflings came in the campaign's player guide, whereas the aasimar didn't come until much later in the PS Monstrous Compendium 2.)
Not that those are good reasons, mind, or that the omission of the aasimar (aka 4e deva) doesn't offend my sense of symmetry as well...
Technically, aasimar/deva WAS a PHB race. Deva (4th edition's version of aasimar) is detailed in the PHB2 for 4th edition, along with the gnome, goliath, half-orc and shifter. PHB3 added the githzerai, wilden, minotaur, and shardmind.
As for the dragonborn comment, I agree that reptiles with breasts is rather absurd. I have no problem with them as a race, but their art (this includes the breastified reptile thing) I just couldn't get past.
Oi, let's not get into a semantic debate. Adjule noted that the deva was introduced in 4e's PHB2, which under 4e parlance qualifies it as core. ("Everything is core") But as 'core' is usually otherwise understood, you are correct that 4e devas are not core.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
anyone that is put off by the rendition of an upright walking, bipedal, human sized, Dragon headed, winged (or not), fire breathing, sentient, heroic, weapon wielding, five fingered (with opposable thumb), fantasy character, because it has breasts, is being, in my opinion, a bit ridiculous
Oh, I don't think so. I can easily see a legitimate criticism against the need to put breasts on a lizard woman to pander to juvenile male desires.
|
|
anyone that is put off by the rendition of an upright walking, bipedal, human sized, Dragon headed, winged (or not), fire breathing, sentient, heroic, weapon wielding, five fingered (with opposable thumb), fantasy character, because it has breasts, is being, in my opinion, a bit ridiculousOh, I don't think so. I can easily see a legitimate criticism against the need to put breasts on a lizard woman to pander to juvenile male desires.
Yep. Pretty much this.
You say that as if pandering is a bad thing
Hey, I like a little fan service every once in a while too, but every other main PC race is so much like humans that they all have females with human-like breasts. Couldn't they have had a little discipline and gone with one race, one in which it makes perfect sense to not have them, without boobs? Apparently not and it was utterly ridiculous.
I guess we'll find out come the DMG, as to whether or not the race makes an appearance or not. But, either way, I'm siding with the camp that gets slightly squicked by them. Uncanny valley, man!
I think it has more to do with humans' desire to be able to differentiate males from females, and adding breasts is the easiest way. I can understand the depiction of female dragonborn having breasts: they are humanoid, afterall. Does their humanish bodies preclude them from having breasts just because they have scales and a dragon-like head? Shouldn't female gnolls, catfolk and ratfolk have multiple breasts because their animal equivalents don't have just 2? It's the same argument.
While I really don't care for female dragonborn or lizardfolk or kobolds or troglodytes or other non-mammalian humanoids to have breasts, I can understand why they would be depicted as having them. Same with any female tengu.
Still doesn't mean that it does not annoy me. But the breasts thing isn't the biggest thing as to why I don't care for their art (it's the face).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One duh moment was when I saw the illustration in the 4th edition adventure Scepter Tower of Spellgard of lady Saharel. Compare it to the illustration of her in Lost Empires of Faerûn, p 101. Seriously...
Also, cat girls should have six or eight t$!$ down their tummies. Reptiles should have exactly NONE.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They lay eggs. What are they, distant relatives of echidnas or platypuses? Damn... now I want a platypus dragon...
Apparently not and it was utterly ridiculous.
Har! Har! I see what you did there. :P
Dragons can be many things, reptile (as a species) may not necessarily be one of those things
That's true, but you have to explain that, if it's going to be true in the baseline standard D&D game world. If dragon milk's a thing, that's fine, but coming up with a draconic PC race because dragons are cool and then drawing the females of the species with breasts because "that's what girls look like" is uncreative to say the least.