So a while back we had this prediction/thread about RPGPundits video on Pathfinder 2e: Postulating that PF2 will split the base and cause Pazio problems:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UDEQCJEWKo
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/pathfinder-2e-or-will-pundit-be-proven-right/msg1072157/#msg1072157
(By all means feel free to ruthlessly berate each other for inaccurate predictions.)
So it's about 18 months since PF2 hit the shelves and this is what we know so far:
Baizuo currently employs 73 people, which is larger than it's ever been.
Pathfinder is declining in popularity since 5E came out. Activity on Paizo's forums is way down, adventure paths get far fewer reviews than they did 6 years ago, very little fan content is being released on Youtube, etc.
Pathfinder 2 was an attempt to stem this tide.
Oh, wait a minute, the same things still apply to Pathfinder 2.
So some things are pointing to PF2 not being the great POC hope that Baizuo might have been banking on.
But where is the evidence?
In the time of the Kung-Flu, online gaming has taken off!
But maybe not so much for PF2...
PF1 is still in the lead on Fantasy Grounds: PFRPG vs. PFRPG2
(https://www.enworld.org/attachments/rulesetusage2020q1_25942_image002-png.121033/)
PF2 games are less than half of the PF1 games on Roll20
(https://images-geeknative-com.exactdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/05005636/q2-2020-camp.jpg?strip=all&lossy=1&w=697&ssl=1&is-pending-load=1&zoom=1920)
Of course over time I do naturally expect PF2 to overtake PF1 on these platforms.
But almost a year and a half in a lagging PF2 is suboptimal.
But there is good news as well!
Pinnacle is doing a SAVAGE WORLDS version of 1e pathfinder adventure paths...
https://www.peginc.com/big-surprise-for-savage-worlds-announcement-thanksgiving/
Wait what? Well, it is a good way for Baizuo to monetize some old product.
I guess that's good if you want to play through PF1e AP with a system that Fucking Sucks.
But why don't they do more 5e conversions?
Maybe beacause Baizuo is not quite ready to raise the white flag just yet...
As of 12-7-2020
https://subredditstats.com/r/pathfinder_RPG
The PF1e 1e subreddit averages 36 posts per day.
https://subredditstats.com/r/pathfinder2e
The PF2 subreddit averages 19 posts per day.
Best Sellers in Fantasy Gaming (amazon listing 12-7-2020)
https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Fantasy-Gaming/zgbs/books/16211/ref=zg_bs_pg_2?_encoding=UTF8&pg=2
#89 Call of Cthulhu Rpg Keeper Rulebook:
#90: PF2 Tome of beasts 2
#91: Baizuo PF2 core
Beaten out by a game released in 2016 is not a good look. (Even if it is a temporary sales spike from CoC)
Naturally this is all relative. HERO games would love to have PF2 sales figures.
But Baizuo is no HERO games. They have things like sales projections, and a marketing budget.
Of course, in a post Nov 3rd 2020 world; Proof is the new Evidence.
And not having access to internal Baizuo financials no one can say anything for certain.
So have the tea leaves been read wrong?
Or are we seeing a train-wreck in slow motion...
Pathfinder is still gay.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 07, 2020, 09:43:36 PM
So have the tea leaves been read wrong?
Or are we seeing a train-wreck in slow motion...
My verdict is a slow train wreck with the proviso that WotC is also going down and it is just a matter of who is going to self destruct first.
Pros:
Paizo has a better more experienced management team.
WotC has Magic money propping them up.
In before Shasarak tells you how unfact-like your facts are. Edit: LOL, he posted while I was writing! But to his credit, he didn't defend Paizo.
Seriously, Paizo was in a no-win situation. Pathfinder grew as much because most D&D converts to PF hated 4e more than they liked PF. D&D 3e had its own issues, which PF mainly papered over (or declared features, instead of flaws). Once 5e came out, folks who were playing PF because they felt 4e had strayed too far from the roots of D&D had a home to come back to, without a bunch of the kludge.
Aside: I don't care what your opinion of 3e, 4e, or 5e are, 3e is objectively harder to prepare custom NPCs, monsters and encounters for than 5e. The necessity to build NPCs using the same rules as PCs (at least as far as the rules encourage the GM to do so) adds a ton more prep time.
So Paizo couldn't just sit on its position as it bled players. So PF2 was necessary, with concessions towards ease-of-use and modern RPG sensibilities (granted, in some cases they just doubled-down on the 3e legacy, but there are some forward looking changes, too). But any changes would likely alienate those who were playing PF because they liked the mechanics of the 3e line. So they started burning their base to chase the folks who were only playing their game as a second choice. There's just no way to win that...
I think a lot could have been done to simplify and clean up Pathfinder 1 without making it fundamentally unbackwards compatible.
The other thing they really needed is good online support for monster building and character building and the like.
The biggest complaint for 3.5 and Pathfinder was always GM prep time. That's something that could have been significantly improved with technology.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 07, 2020, 10:17:40 PM
In before Shasarak tells you how unfact-like your facts are. Edit: LOL, he posted while I was writing! But to his credit, he didn't defend Paizo.
Your mind reading skills could do with a level up or two.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 07, 2020, 10:12:56 PM
Quote from: Jaeger on December 07, 2020, 09:43:36 PM
So have the tea leaves been read wrong?
Or are we seeing a train-wreck in slow motion...
My verdict is a slow train wreck with the proviso that WotC is also going down and it is just a matter of who is going to self destruct first.
Pros:
Paizo has a better more experienced management team.
WotC has Magic money propping them up.
WOTC had a book in the top 5 of all books for sale in the nation. This week!
Their D&D books are like printing money at this point.
I went to Barnes and Noble last week and they had moved the D&D books to the front of the store where you walk in. Because...almost all of them have been best sellers.
What's a Baizuo?
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 08, 2020, 12:08:49 AM
What's a Baizuo?
From the Alt-right, conservative, right-wing racist website - Wikipedia:
"Baizuo (/ˈbaɪˌdzwɔː/; Chinese: 白左; pinyin: báizuǒ, literally White Left) is a Chinese neologism and political epithet used to refer to Western leftist ideologies primarily espoused by white people. The term baizuo is related to the term shèngmǔ (圣母, 聖母, literally "Blessed Mother"), a sarcastic reference to those whose political opinions are perceived as being guided by emotions or a hypocritical show of selflessness and empathy."Pazio / Baizuo, I make a funny at pazio's expense.
Ha ha.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 08, 2020, 12:23:20 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 08, 2020, 12:08:49 AM
What's a Baizuo?
From the Alt-right, conservative, right-wing racist website - Wikipedia:
"Baizuo (/ˈbaɪˌdzwɔː/; Chinese: 白左; pinyin: báizuǒ, literally White Left) is a Chinese neologism and political epithet used to refer to Western leftist ideologies primarily espoused by white people. The term baizuo is related to the term shèngmǔ (圣母, 聖母, literally "Blessed Mother"), a sarcastic reference to those whose political opinions are perceived as being guided by emotions or a hypocritical show of selflessness and empathy."
Pazio / Baizuo, I make a funny at pazio's expense.
Ha ha.
So, it's Chinese for BOZO! I get it, Knee-How! ;D
When it comes to Pathfinder, I think 3-3.5E has run it's course. I am under the belief that they need to do something radical, like build a new system from the ground up to support new product. Call me crazy, but I was never enamored with 2E through 3.5E, as both seemed to forget what their roots were. However, I only ever watched 4E and it was combat. I mean, it was awful. Made me wanna cry with all the modifiers and such! Oh, well, who needs fun when you got rules, right?
Quote from: Jaeger on December 08, 2020, 12:23:20 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 08, 2020, 12:08:49 AM
What's a Baizuo?
From the Alt-right, conservative, right-wing racist website - Wikipedia:
"Baizuo (/ˈbaɪˌdzwɔː/; Chinese: 白左; pinyin: báizuǒ, literally White Left) is a Chinese neologism and political epithet used to refer to Western leftist ideologies primarily espoused by white people. The term baizuo is related to the term shèngmǔ (圣母, 聖母, literally "Blessed Mother"), a sarcastic reference to those whose political opinions are perceived as being guided by emotions or a hypocritical show of selflessness and empathy."
Pazio / Baizuo, I make a funny at pazio's expense.
Ha ha.
Greetings!
Fucking awesome, Jaeger! It's so funny, too, because the Chinese term Baizuo is so encompassing, and yet *precise* for all the stupid, SJW Libtard morons, that love to clutch their pearls about everything while they sob hysterically.
Paizo is definitely fucked if they think their game business will survive catering to the sobbing SJW cuck bitches.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: consolcwby on December 08, 2020, 01:14:05 AM
So, it's Chinese for BOZO! I get it, Knee-How! ;D
When it comes to Pathfinder, I think 3-3.5E has run it's course. I am under the belief that they need to do something radical, like build a new system from the ground up to support new product.
That's what PF2 was supposed to be for them... but they attached to the same woke garbage setting it had before.
I would argue that Goloron itself has run its course. It's every corner has been documented so all the new rules can do is re-cover the same things as the previous edition. So it's not even a fresh woke garbage setting; it's a reheated woke garbage setting.
There's something to be said for having to abandon the familiar surface dross and be forced to either dig back into the original myths and legends for a fresh take or to have to start from scratch. New worlds with new frontiers and new take on ancient lore are just more interesting than the fourth iteration of Forgotten Realms or the second of Goloron.
I may have said it before yet the writing was on the wall for a new edition long before PF 2E was announced. Pathfinder Unchained a product that wa never on their release schedule suddenly appears a few months after 5E was announced. It took the core rules and it changed some aspects of the game completely like removing the action economy. Which they then in turn included a big part of Unchained in Starfinder core. Yet somehow the 3.5. Die hards lied to themselves that a new edition was never on the horizon.
The whole bending of the knee apologizing for having a police themed Adventure Path. Except their is a difference in apologizing and bending the knee. Another when it comes off like a low level mob flunky begging for his life from the Godfather. They not only fell on the floor and showed their belly. They offered up the knife to carve it open. Deleting and closing threads and banning posters who felt differently also did not help matters. Wotc with 5E and older editions did the same thing yet they did not insult the fanbase who actually worke in law enforcement.
Stubborn unwillingness to release good rules at least with PF 1E. Either something was too good or so useless to be worse than a trap option. Made worse when they changed stuff that they had no real reason too except because Pathfinder society whined long and hard about. This and the above in the list is not going to sell books or keep the fanbase.
Making the core setting as inoffensive and Vanilla as possible. While also making it as SJW as possible. They had their version of Africa colonized by whites in the setting. Of course in 2E the natives overthrow and slaughtered them all and took their country back. Every country with a ruled by a male member of royalty suddenly has female members of royalty. Evil races and the word race is removed because SJW members of the hobby may have their feelings hurt. It's to the point that they refer to a Succubus as aLust Demon in the 2E Bestiary yet she has more cloths than an 18th century Victorian era model.
It's just the overall arrogant feeling that no matter what they do the majority of the fanbase need to sometimes eat shit and like it. Good luck with that. One could get their way of thinking if 5E was not taking away their sales and fanbase. I guess go woke and broke is what they want to do.
Is this why they're releasing PF1 rules and APs for Savage Worlds - to forfeit the arms race and go with licensing their old stuff?
Quote from: sureshot on December 08, 2020, 08:34:37 AMMaking the core setting as inoffensive and Vanilla as possible. While also making it as SJW as possible.
All those changes and still less than 1/3 of the players made the switch. Clearly Paizo is listening to the wrong segment of their player base (if the SJWs are actually playing the game which is doubtful).
People said that Paizo was in a lose/lose situation but it seems like choice was lose or lose a while lot more.
I bought the P2 book on a whim because it was on sale on Amazon and had a coupon too and I figure I could mine something out of it. After reading through it, P2 it is NOT a SJW fest like 5e, they skim the pandering cleverly by adding goblin as a player race in the core book and orcs, cat people and tengu in the Advanced Player Guide. So I will give them this, so far they have stifled those who would cry unfair by offering goblins, orcs and other species as player options.
I am still not a convert, but at this point if I was told I could only play either P2 or 5E instead of the usual fare i would go for P2. Until they buckle.
5e is everybody's second favorite edition by mostly being vaporware. And then people see what they like in the clouds. Its the edition I respect the least, even if I would play it over some other things.
As for PF 2e. It has many good ideas. Many more bad ones. I'd say primarily a love of fidgetiness and wordiness. PF2e at its worst, is the concentrated worst aspects of 1e. Which just shows arrogance on their side.
Competition with D&D has always been a massive challenge due to cultural importance and higher marketing. I do think they could have leveraged it and could have come out on top if 2e was a better product and came out before 5e.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 08, 2020, 11:34:52 AM
5e is everybody's second favorite edition...
Yeah - I've heard that argument before. It's a system which no one finds too objectionable, and in a social game that's a big bonus as between that and the name recognition, it's much easier to put a table together than more niche choices. And while 5e isn't close to my favorite system (too much "GM may I" and character choices are a bit same-y for my taste) I'd certainly join a table if I was invited and had an afternoon free.
Quote from: bat on December 08, 2020, 11:15:02 AM
I bought the P2 book on a whim because it was on sale on Amazon and had a coupon too and I figure I could mine something out of it. After reading through it, P2 it is NOT a SJW fest like 5e, they skim the pandering cleverly by adding goblin as a player race in the core book and orcs, cat people and tengu in the Advanced Player Guide. So I will give them this, so far they have stifled those who would cry unfair by offering goblins, orcs and other species as player options.
I am still not a convert, but at this point if I was told I could only play either P2 or 5E instead of the usual fare i would go for P2. Until they buckle.
Goblins as a PC race was utterly bizarre, as Paizo had refluffed goblins into barely-sentient creatures who were more like tool-using pirahna than anything else. I would've added kobolds as an option instead.
I agree. Kobolds are a player race in the Advanced Player Guide and done well. I will probably integrate them into a Black Hack game.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 08, 2020, 10:57:42 AM
All those changes and still less than 1/3 of the players made the switch. Clearly Paizo is listening to the wrong segment of their player base (if the SJWs are actually playing the game which is doubtful).
Where did you get that figure? Just curious is all.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 08, 2020, 10:57:42 AM
People said that Paizo was in a lose/lose situation but it seems like choice was lose or lose a while lot more.
Their is no pleasing Grognards especially D&D they want nothing to change yet want everyone else to contiually buy rehashed material. I may not like what they did with PF 2E in some respects. Yet they needed to do something to counter 5E stealing away fans and market share. A rehash of a rehash of 3.5 with no to little changes was not the way to go imo. Paizo business model or part of it was based perhaps stupidly on Wotc never making a better product. Or one that actually address the flaws of the creaky 3.5 engine. When Wotc did with 5E they were in a Catch 22 situation.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 07, 2020, 10:12:56 PM
My verdict is a slow train wreck with the proviso that WotC is also going down and it is just a matter of who is going to self destruct first.
Pros:
Paizo has a better more experienced management team.
WotC has Magic money propping them up.
The next D&D edition may very well go down to wokeness.
But having Hasbro money around to forever prop them up when they pull another 4e is HUGE.
If marvel and DC comics were not part of their respective megacorps, they would have filed for bankruptcy due to wokeness years back.
Megacorp money is currently subsidizing the wokeness of woke subsidiaries in amounts that would make your eyes water.
This kind of permanent corporate subsidy on tap from Hasbro to WOTC will mean that some form of "Official" D&D will be around forever.
Quote from: theOutlander on December 08, 2020, 08:41:59 AM
Is this why they're releasing PF1 rules and APs for Savage Worlds - to forfeit the arms race and go with licensing their old stuff?
No, it's to try and monetize their back catalogue without going the 5e route.
They can't re-print for PF2 - because their base is expecting new product.
Translating past AP for 5e would be the biggest money maker they could do. But that would be signaling to their fanbase that they are capitulating to the 5e juggernaut. And at this point that would only hasten their downfall.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 08, 2020, 10:57:42 AM
All those changes and still less than 1/3 of the players made the switch. Clearly Paizo is listening to the wrong segment of their player base (if the SJWs are actually playing the game which is doubtful).
People said that Paizo was in a lose/lose situation but it seems like the choice was lose or lose a while lot more.
In a way yes.
Baizio's rise was due to circumstances that will not exist again.
They should have not done a PF2, and scaled back to 5e support. Starfinder should have been a 5e "game".
Maybe they should have done a Pathfinder 5e! - a 100% backward compatible Advanced D&D5e if you will. (like AiME)
But I think they feel that they are pot-committed to having their own system at this point. And we'll see where that gets them.
I just don't think PF2 offers a different enough play experience to give it legs as a permanent #2 to 5e.
I believe that PF2 is essentially a bust. And Baizuo will eventually have to scale back and downsize at some point.
Probably when the 5e fad starts to fade. So it'll be a few years before we see Baizuo publicly acknowledging reality.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 08, 2020, 01:33:17 PM
...
Goblins as a PC race was utterly bizarre, as Paizo had refluffed goblins into barely-sentient creatures who were more like tool-using pirahna than anything else. I would've added kobolds as an option instead.
Hold on... that's awesome! They nerfed that to make them a PC race!?
So dumb. Orcs and Goblins are for the killing.
We switched from PF1 to PF2 at the start of this year with my friends and family group. It has the right amount of crunch for those that want it and the 3 action combat system makes the combat flow quite nicely. They can put all the SJW stuff in their setting that they want since I don't use Paizo's hodgepodge world setting or adventures. I have my very own setting that my group have been in for years....we change the game engine from time to time. At first it was Ad&d 2E then years later switched to PF1 now its PF2.
Over all its not a bad system. I like a lot of it and change the few things I don't like, just like every game system I have ever GM'd.
At the end of the day, despite what others say, I'm having fun using the PF2 system. Right now Paizo could disappear off the face of the earth. I have what I need to keep playing PF2. I would of course come up with my own classes, spells, feats, magic items, races, etc....which I already have because that's what PermaGM's do :p
Quote from: sureshot on December 08, 2020, 06:08:26 PM
...
Their is no pleasing Grognards especially D&D they want nothing to change yet want everyone else to contiually buy rehashed material. I may not like what they did with PF 2E in some respects. Yet they needed to do something to counter 5E stealing away fans and market share. A rehash of a rehash of 3.5 with no to little changes was not the way to go imo. Paizo business model or part of it was based perhaps stupidly on Wotc never making a better product. Or one that actually address the flaws of the creaky 3.5 engine. When Wotc did with 5E they were in a Catch 22 situation.
Yes.
D&D grognards like their D&D the way they like it, and they don't want you to touch anything. They do not want a new edition, but if you were to make a new edition they have an endless list of things to improve. So that you can make a new D&D just like the old D&D, without changing anything, but just make it better.
D&D grognardia put the smack down on 4e. And 5e was a combination of lukewarm lightning in a bottle, and lucky pop culture timing.
What interests me is the fact that 5e has had INSANE success...
Will enough of the "new D&D fans" that 5e has brought in stay around for a 6th edition?
And are there enough of them to drown out / replace the old grognard guard, if they like the direction 6e goes and the 1-3e grognards do not?
I think the WOTC 4e developers were subconsciously was counting on that effect to a large degree with 4e (because 3e did so well...).
Maybe due to 5e's insane success it may play out this time...
Quote from: Krugus on December 08, 2020, 07:33:35 PM
Over all its not a bad system. I like a lot of it and change the few things I don't like, just like every game system I have ever GM'd.
At the end of the day, despite what others say, I'm having fun using the PF2 system. Right now Paizo could disappear off the face of the earth. I have what I need to keep playing PF2. I would of course come up with my own classes, spells, feats, magic items, races, etc....which I already have because that's what PermaGM's do :p
The system is very robust.
My main problem is the way the rule book is presented, they really need a good editor to go through and tidy it up more. Honestly I would cut the Golarion lore sections and use the extra pages for padding the rules so that you do not have to page back and forth through the book just to find all of the key word explanations that are randomly sprinkled through the tome.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 08, 2020, 08:36:59 PM
The system is very robust.
My main problem is the way the rule book is presented, they really need a good editor to go through and tidy it up more. Honestly I would cut the Golarion lore sections and use the extra pages for padding the rules so that you do not have to page back and forth through the book just to find all of the key word explanations that are randomly sprinkled through the tome.
Agreed!
They have an entire line of books for their hodgepodge setting. There was no need for it to be in the CRB to be honest.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 08, 2020, 07:44:10 PMWill enough of the "new D&D fans" that 5e has brought in stay around for a 6th edition?
And are there enough of them to drown out / replace the old grognard guard, if they like the direction 6e goes and the 1-3e grognards do not?
I suspect so, yes. Much like Games Workshop is to tabletop wargaming, for the majority of people DnD IS the RPG hobby and whilst I don't want to sound like somebody griping about the young'uns, I don't feel like a 4e situation could ever really occur again short of 6e being printed on pages glued together by faeces. They will buy 6e because that's simply what D&D 'is' now, their favourite social media personalities/e-celebs tell them to buy it, so they do. When official support for 5e drops and the banners on D&DBeyond swap over to tell them it's for 6e now bucko, they'll make shift because... well that's just what you do,
why would you play old editions? This is the newest one so it's clearly the best!
Quote from: Jaeger on December 08, 2020, 07:23:10 PMBut I think they feel that they are pot-committed to having their own system at this point. And we'll see where that gets them.
I seems that the era of constantly making new editions that are similar but incompatible is over. Hopefully, WotC is watching this play out and rethinking any 6e plans they might already have. Older versions of games are more available now than ever before so there's much less need to stick with current editions.
IMO Paizo should kept supporting 1e while also making a new game with the same setting that does something Pathfinder can't do. Such as an "epic" level game with combat rules so streamlined that PCs can fight dozens of bad guys at a time. Something that's not compatible yet is convertable.
Welp. I'm dissapointed in those numbers just because I think diversity (-shudder-, thanks to the numbnuts who ruined that word) is good for the hobby. D&D being the most popular is to be expected. D&D to dominate and other games to be a tiny percentage next to it is disheartening.
The relative unpopularity of these edge-games appeals to my inner hipster. Doesn't the prospect of lording one's eclectic taste over the unwashed 5e masses sound like an enjoyable prospect?
The lack of players is disheartening though, to be sure.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 08, 2020, 11:34:52 AM
5e is everybody's second favorite edition by mostly being vaporware.
That's not what the term "vaporware" means. There is nothing vaporware about 5e.
Thinking of giving it a try and I looked up PF2 character sheets just to see what was out there and I came across a Twitter post by one of the DnD5 diehards that complains about the PF2 character sheet being four pages. As one is a spell sheet and another detailed inventory it isn't THAT heavy of a burden as any 5e sheet, yet the 'yes people' join in lamenting how obtuse and busy and 'like a tax form' the sheet is. So it isn't just grognards that want it their way. Apparently some of the new wave of gamers are so set on 5e that they do not see that it is also a crunchy game.
Quote from: Mistwell on December 08, 2020, 11:04:41 PMThat's not what the term "vaporware" means. There is nothing vaporware about 5e.
Fair enough. Though most of 5e was promised in development and never came out. But its success is being so insubstantive that people attach whatever they want too it.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 09, 2020, 12:26:11 AM
Quote from: Mistwell on December 08, 2020, 11:04:41 PMThat's not what the term "vaporware" means. There is nothing vaporware about 5e.
Fair enough. Though most of 5e was promised in development and never came out. But its success is being so insubstantive that people attach whatever they want too it.
Yeah. The highly modular game of D&D that we were promised never really materialised.
What we got was a highly cleaned up and modernised take on Castles and Crusades.
Quote from: TJS on December 09, 2020, 12:32:27 AM
Yeah. The highly modular game of D&D that we were promised never really materialised.
What we got was a highly cleaned up and modernised take on Castles and Crusades.
My slant on that same idea is that 5E was (mostly well) designed to be modular but many of the modules were never developed because WotC spent too much time writing D&D fan fiction.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 08, 2020, 07:23:10 PM
Hold on... that's awesome! They nerfed that to make them a PC race!?
So dumb. Orcs and Goblins are for the killing.
Orcs, hobgoblins, kobolds, even gnolls could make decent enough PCs. Bugbears don't work because they tend towards serial killer sadism, but at least they'd make interesting opponents, kind of like a fantasy version of the Ghost-face killer from Scream.
Goblins, on the other hand, are routinely routed by angry dogs and are frightened of horses (who return the favor by stepping on goblins). They're terrified of writing -- they think it steals words out of your head. About the only impressive skill they have is arson and fire-handling (they seem to have an innate knack for not setting anything on fire that they don't want to). They're also prone to getting distracted in combat.
And this is all documented in Paizo's
Classic Monsters Revisited. So it's not like this is homebrew or me making shit up.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on December 09, 2020, 06:21:25 AM
My slant on that same idea is that 5E was (mostly well) designed to be modular but many of the modules were never developed because WotC spent too much time writing D&D fan fiction.
I think that the "modular" aspect is that you can add or remove certain components of the rules or character creation and the game still works well. For example, if one wants a really old school vibe one can remove skills and backgrounds and the game has an older feel to it. The free "basic" PDF with only a "core four" class approach shows that you really don't need all of the extra classes and class options. I think that this is what they meant, and I feel like 5E delivered something like that.
Is there any any 5E fiction? I haven't really kept up. Most of the D&D fiction that I've seen seems to be Dragonlance or older Forgotten Realms stuff.
Quote from: Krugus on December 08, 2020, 08:48:46 PM
Agreed!
They have an entire line of books for their hodgepodge setting. There was no need for it to be in the CRB to be honest.
Seconded
What is annoying with PF 2E and new setting material is they have become very greedy and how the sell it with the new edtion. With the Inner Sea world book it has everything one needs without buying other expansions and priced right imo:
https://www.amazon.ca/Pathfinder-Campaign-Setting-World-Guide/dp/1601252692/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3C2UVCWCX84UH&dchild=1&keywords=inner+sea+world+guide&qid=1607521336&sprefix=inner+sea+%2Caps%2C155&sr=8-1
Their update for P2E is not even half the size and costs only a little less:
https://www.amazon.ca/Pathfinder-Lost-Omens-World-Guide/dp/1640781722/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=pathfinder+2e+lost+omens&qid=1607521402&sr=8-3
With them spreading out the information as much as possible over multiple sourcebooks and each one has to be a hardcover so they can sell it twice as much as one of their old softcover sourcebooks used to cost.
Personal opinion if they could find away to take away their SRd the would as without it one has to buy the new material.
Quote from: TJS on December 09, 2020, 12:32:27 AM
What we got was a highly cleaned up and modernised take on Castles and Crusades.
Which is one of the key reasons I've never bought the 5E core books--by the time it came out, I had already invested in C&C to fill that niche, and the 5E additions didn't justify the expenses and other annoyances. Besides, the Trolls don't despise me. :)
Honestly any rpg selling point of being modular is somewhat overrated.
What i mean that many gamers tend to just take a setting change a few things here and there yet mostly use most of the material as written. While making a new setting from scratch is both fun and rewarding to both players and DMs. It's takes work and time consuming. Not something many DMs/Gms want to do. I liked the setting for Golarion for the most part changed a few things and added a few new yet the majority of the setting remain intact.
Quote from: finarvyn on December 09, 2020, 08:20:53 AM
Is there any any 5E fiction? I haven't really kept up. Most of the D&D fiction that I've seen seems to be Dragonlance or older Forgotten Realms stuff.
I exaggerate only slightly for effect. The Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide is the worst (at least out of the ones published back when I was still buying their stuff). In an alternate timeline where nothing else changes in 5E but that SCAG is completely trashed and replaced with a book that delivers on module implementation -- not necessarily even excellent modules, merely solid -- it radically changes the whole quality of the 5E product line. Basically, if the book had been as well done as the third-party Middle Earth adaptation. Sure, there would still be all kinds of issues that could be better, but SWAG is a book written by hacks and splat writers instructed to try not to write a splat book and thus filling it with mostly crap.
If it were me, I'd have written the replacement book as a very solid effort towards supporting old-school sandbox play, complete with some advice on how to do it for newbies and also some advice on how to edge into it for effect for those that don't care for the style. However, that would have taken real thought, work, and effort.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 08, 2020, 01:33:17 PM
Goblins as a PC race was utterly bizarre, as Paizo had refluffed goblins into barely-sentient creatures who were more like tool-using pirahna than anything else. I would've added kobolds as an option instead.
Huh. Did they get the idea from Harn's Gargun, or come up with it on their own?
Quote from: Krugus on December 08, 2020, 07:33:35 PM
We switched from PF1 to PF2 at the start of this year with my friends and family group. It has the right amount of crunch for those that want it and the 3 action combat system makes the combat flow quite nicely. They can put all the SJW stuff in their setting that they want since I don't use Paizo's hodgepodge world setting or adventures. I have my very own setting that my group have been in for years....we change the game engine from time to time. At first it was Ad&d 2E then years later switched to PF1 now its PF2.
Over all its not a bad system. I like a lot of it and change the few things I don't like, just like every game system I have ever GM'd.
At the end of the day, despite what others say, I'm having fun using the PF2 system. Right now Paizo could disappear off the face of the earth. I have what I need to keep playing PF2. I would of course come up with my own classes, spells, feats, magic items, races, etc....which I already have because that's what PermaGM's do :p
I liked the PF1 rules for the most part. I almost started a campaign with PF, but it was just as the release of PF2's 'beta' rules hit the shelves. When I read through the lecturing at the beginning it sort of put me off, and we went with 5e instead. Given current course, it might be a lot easier to swallow a paragraph of lecture than endless splats and core rule changes. I do like the idea of Paizo putting some of their stuff into savage worlds. I would LOVE to see frog god games put rappan athuk in SW (I have pathfinder RA and 5e RA, was going to convert RA to Gurps or SW, but it would be a great thing if FG was nice enough to do that for me).
I do not much care for d20 systems, but my group likes them the most, and the reality is they tend to be the ones with the longer development concepts behind them and seem to be easier to grasp for most people. I would really love for PF2 (lecture paragraph and all) to be a real competitor to D&D, and I am a bit confused as to why they are not (I remember at GenCON 2016 pathfinder had a H U G E presence, and I do not remember even seeing a WOTC booth) at least in terms of sales. I think real, healthy competition at the top produces other quality products that can get a foothold like SW and DCC. I have about written GURPS off, even though at this point the starter rules can do just about anything you would ever want to do in an rpg, their presentation, iconic characters and digital media presence are pretty...ugh. They create the appearance of being a system only engineers can enjoy, despite that not being the case.
Quote from: sureshot on December 09, 2020, 08:50:20 AM
Honestly any rpg selling point of being modular is somewhat overrated.
I tend to agree. That's why I don't bill my game system as modular.
That said, I do have a whole section of optional rules that can allow it to better emulate various editions of D&D.
The default is a Big Damn Heroes (far from invincible, but a starting PC could handle a trio of city guards solo with little difficulty) with attributes assigned from an array, an option selected at each level up and tactical combat on a grid.
But with the optional rules you could start down at "zero" on the zero to hero scale (at the most extreme option a single city guard would be a life-threatening encounter) with randomly generated, class options are predetermined and the combat rules tweaked for theatre of the mind.
It's also designed so you can just yank any species or classes you don't want out and you won't need to make any extra changes to the rules as a result (i.e. a game where everyone is human and there is no magic works out of the box; so does one where everyone has to play a mystic dragon).
Similarly, while I have a detailed default setting, I deliberately designed it to be only a small region (c. 100 miles across) so GMs can easily add their own details just beyond the borders (or drop their own region onto the world a thousand miles away). I'm also finishing up a lengthy section on how to put together a campaign region to help guide new GMs through the process step-by-step (including random tables if they don't want to decide for themselves) to ensure it will have all the basics needed for a campaign (primarily a home base and enough nearby places to have adventures in with interesting things in the wilds between them).
I also left a number of things as outright mysteries with a list of possibilities for the GM to choose from. A related section had suggestions for how to tailor the setting through the use of descriptions as anything from a post-Roman collapse Dark Ages, to a modern post-apocalypse (think Thundarr the Barbarian) to a Science Fantasy world (think the Outer Rim regions of Star Wars).
Also included are suggestions on how to tailor the tone of a campaign on a few axis; serious vs. silly, linear vs. sandbox, heroic vs. horror) to match your desires and including optional rules to implement for each extreme since the default rules are mostly in the middle.
So it's kinda modular in that one group could be playing a serious Dark Ages zero-to-hero horror sandbox with only humans, no magic, random attributes, random backgrounds and fixed class abilities while another group is playing a light-hearted science fantasy big damn heroes romp through a quest-based campaign where everything from sprites to dragons is available and they select every class and background option they gain when leveling up.
But that's not modular in the way you're using the term (i.e. here's a box of Legos; you need to put them together into a setting). It's just taking the time to lay out for new GMs how they can adjust many parts of the setting/rules to fit their particular tastes.
I'm interested in seeing the Pathfinder stuff in Savage Worlds versions. I'd probably never play the Pathfinder versions, but I probably would the Savage Worlds versions. I'm also interested in how it will play differently than Pathfinder in the Savage Worlds versions. I like the different way fantasy games play in D&D, Savage Worlds, and GURPS. Each systems gives the game a different interesting flavor. (My experience with Pathfinder 1E was short and entirely out of the core books, and to me it played like a slightly cleaned up D&D 3.5E.)
When I write my own fantasy adventures I tend to use Savage Worlds, because I find prepping for it is easier than GURPS or D&D 3E and its descendants, and I enjoy running Savage Worlds more than recent iterations of D&D and friends. (I very much enjoy playing D&D 5E, just not running it.)
I like D&D 3E and its descendants for consistent skill rules and the addition of feats, but I came to realize that the fact that most monsters were now just as complicated as the player characters meant that prepping to run a game was much more complicated for the DM. The asymmetrical nature of monsters in traditional versions of D&D made prepping much easier. You can say "just wing it" and throw down some numbers arbitrarily, but I found something about D&D 3E and friends encouraged building the opponents to be as complicated as the PCs, and that takes time and effort.
I think the additional effort required helped the popularity of Paizo's Adventure Paths, and D&D 5E's campaign books: The work is done for you, which makes a lot of difference when you don't have a lot of time and all you want to do is sit down and play. I have a feeling that something like this might also be profitable for GURPS, for that matter. (Gaming Ballistics' Nordlond books are a step in the right direction for GURPS in the form of the Dungeon Fantasy RPG, but are a series of short adventures and setting information, rather than long-term campaigns.)
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 09, 2020, 11:03:33 AM
Quote from: sureshot on December 09, 2020, 08:50:20 AM
Honestly any rpg selling point of being modular is somewhat overrated.
I tend to agree. That's why I don't bill my game system as modular.
That said, I do have a whole section of optional rules that can allow it to better emulate various editions of D&D.
A link/Title? Sounds very much up my alley.
Quote from: JeffB on December 09, 2020, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 09, 2020, 11:03:33 AM
I tend to agree. That's why I don't bill my game system as modular.
That said, I do have a whole section of optional rules that can allow it to better emulate various editions of D&D.
A link/Title? Sounds very much up my alley.
The game is called
'Ruins & Realms' (a reference to the PCs who cross between the monster-haunted ruin-filled wilds and the last bastions of the civilized world) that is the in final phases of writing (the only section left is a guide to help new GMs build a region to set their campaigns in) with a target for writing completion of the end of the month (day job requirements are the only possible hindrances - Christmas season can get crazy).
I'm also having it be aggressively play-tested, so if you're willing to give me some feedback in exchange, send me a PM and I'll shoot you a link to the latest playtest iteration (its fully playable, unless you need help building a province-sized area to have adventures in; the final sections are all about making the whole system as new-player/new-GM friendly as possible).
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 08, 2020, 09:45:07 PM
... D&D being the most popular is to be expected. D&D to dominate and other games to be a tiny percentage next to it is disheartening.
I agree.
And a good portion of the "blame" for that dominance can be laid at the feet of Ryan Dancy. The goal of OGL d20 was for the D&D house system to subsume and dominate other gaming systems. It was a brilliant move.
D&D and the rest of the RPG hobby are two different things. But for the majority of people D&D is the RPG hobby.
When D&D's market share was not quite so massive as it is now, in the 80's to 90's, that was a better time for the RPG hobby as a whole.
You had a greater variety of games more readily available
on the shelves at actual gaming stores for people new to the hobby to see that there was more out there after the D&D gateway drug.
In D&D's "defense", when they did have a low market share, no one really stepped up to the plate to be a perennially strong number two... (Baizuo was never going to be it...)
In the other games defense, when D&D screwed the pooch, they benefitted from 2 buy-outs and a corporate money injection to right the ship. Such are the benefits of being the market leader...
Quote from: bat on December 08, 2020, 11:35:21 PM
... So it isn't just grognards that want it their way. Apparently some of the new wave of gamers are so set on 5e that they do not see that it is also a crunchy game.
A lot of the new wave gamers handwave a lot of rules once they get done with PC creation.
This is part of the Mercer effect of playing fast and lose with rules to keep "The Fiction Moving".
People playing in the new "Mercer Style" would probably be better served with a bit more rules light system. But that system would not say D&D on the cover, and it would not get played.
Quote from: oggsmash on December 09, 2020, 10:36:45 AM...
I do not much care for d20 systems, but my group likes them the most, and the reality is they tend to be the ones with the longer development concepts behind them and seem to be easier to grasp for most people.
5e D&D is a solid mid-crunch game. And is no easier to learn than many other systems.
It seems easier to grasp. But that is only because d20 is so pervasive now.
Quote from: oggsmash on December 09, 2020, 10:36:45 AM...
I would really love for PF2 (lecture paragraph and all) to be a real competitor to D&D, and I am a bit confused as to why they are not (I remember at GenCON 2016 pathfinder had a H U G E presence, and I do not remember even seeing a WOTC booth) at least in terms of sales.
WOTC doesn't do gencon – I believe that's because Baizuo is a big sponsor for gencon...
PF2 is no competitor to 5e because Baizuo went in the wrong design direction catering to their hardcore base, and ignoring what was happening in the hobby with 5e.
But given their position it was an easy mistake for them to make.
It was a simple compounding of their first mistake when they took the wrong design direction for PF1 – they were never going to be a true competitor once WOTC got its act together with 5e.
The quick turnaround from 4e to 5e put Baizuo in a big bind as well.
The second Hasbro saw PF1 was kicking 4e's ass, they spanked WOTC, and had them shift to new edition mode. That shit cost BIG $$$$.
Baizuo released PF1 in August 2008, only 3 months after 4e was released in June 2008.
5e was released in 2014. 7 years is a
short edition run.
And WOTC benefitted enormously from having a relatively clean sheet design brief to work from given how much 4e was disliked. This is a highly underestimated point in 5e's favor.
The designers literally did not have to give a fuck about "backwards compatibility", or any reactions from 4e's "fanbase".
What was Baizuo supposed to do? Would the PF1 fanbase have followed them over to a PF2 released in 2015?
What design direction was Baizuo supposed to take with PF2?
Especially since WOTC sucked all the oxygen out of the room with 5e's rolling back of system mastery and rules complexity. The very design space Baizuo's PF1 should have been at in 2008 with a cleaned up and streamlined 3.x...
Baizuo made a good bet in 2008 that 4e would suck. But it was a fluke of circumstances. And having doubled down on that bet when the underlying conditions are no longer the same will not favor their market position in the long run.
It would take ten years for pazio PF1 and PF2 to die out. No?
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 09, 2020, 04:56:41 PM
Quote from: JeffB on December 09, 2020, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 09, 2020, 11:03:33 AM
I tend to agree. That's why I don't bill my game system as modular.
That said, I do have a whole section of optional rules that can allow it to better emulate various editions of D&D.
A link/Title? Sounds very much up my alley.
The game is called 'Ruins & Realms' (a reference to the PCs who cross between the monster-haunted ruin-filled wilds and the last bastions of the civilized world) that is the in final phases of writing (the only section left is a guide to help new GMs build a region to set their campaigns in) with a target for writing completion of the end of the month (day job requirements are the only possible hindrances - Christmas season can get crazy).
I'm also having it be aggressively play-tested, so if you're willing to give me some feedback in exchange, send me a PM and I'll shoot you a link to the latest playtest iteration (its fully playable, unless you need help building a province-sized area to have adventures in; the final sections are all about making the whole system as new-player/new-GM friendly as possible).
I'm afraid I would be no help at the moment for playtesting. Moving and most of my group is on hiatus thanks to the plandemic. But keep me in the loop on release!
Quote from: JeffB on December 10, 2020, 08:00:34 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 09, 2020, 04:56:41 PM
Quote from: JeffB on December 09, 2020, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 09, 2020, 11:03:33 AM
I tend to agree. That's why I don't bill my game system as modular.
That said, I do have a whole section of optional rules that can allow it to better emulate various editions of D&D.
A link/Title? Sounds very much up my alley.
The game is called 'Ruins & Realms' (a reference to the PCs who cross between the monster-haunted ruin-filled wilds and the last bastions of the civilized world) that is the in final phases of writing (the only section left is a guide to help new GMs build a region to set their campaigns in) with a target for writing completion of the end of the month (day job requirements are the only possible hindrances - Christmas season can get crazy).
I'm also having it be aggressively play-tested, so if you're willing to give me some feedback in exchange, send me a PM and I'll shoot you a link to the latest playtest iteration (its fully playable, unless you need help building a province-sized area to have adventures in; the final sections are all about making the whole system as new-player/new-GM friendly as possible).
I'm afraid I would be no help at the moment for playtesting. Moving and most of my group is on hiatus thanks to the plandemic. But keep me in the loop on release!
Will do... its all good on my end.
Barring work complications, end of the year (month at this point) for writing completion, then my next step is getting a Kickstarter (or equivalent) organized to pay for the rest of the artwork it needs, a professional copy editor and other production sundries with the draft rules as an immediate pledge reward (thus proving this isn't a vaporware project to backers) and physical/pdf copies of one or both books as various pledge level rewards (which will hopefully avoid any boondoggles involving oddball third-party supplied rewards).
So the next major announcement (beyond "FINALLY done with the writing! YAY!!!") will probably be on the Kickstarter sticky at the top of this board when that's ready to launch.
Quote from: dmariz_BlackUnicorn on December 10, 2020, 07:49:24 AM
It would take ten years for pazio PF1 and PF2 to die out. No?
To completely die out as gamelines? If Baizuo stopped support, sure.
But I think that at some point Baizuo will acknowledge reality; 'restructure' / downsize, and continue to exist, a Pathfinder rpg will be around for a while.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 10, 2020, 10:01:12 AM
Quote from: JeffB on December 10, 2020, 08:00:34 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 09, 2020, 04:56:41 PM
Quote from: JeffB on December 09, 2020, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 09, 2020, 11:03:33 AM
I tend to agree. That's why I don't bill my game system as modular.
That said, I do have a whole section of optional rules that can allow it to better emulate various editions of D&D.
A link/Title? Sounds very much up my alley.
The game is called 'Ruins & Realms' (a reference to the PCs who cross between the monster-haunted ruin-filled wilds and the last bastions of the civilized world) that is the in final phases of writing (the only section left is a guide to help new GMs build a region to set their campaigns in) with a target for writing completion of the end of the month (day job requirements are the only possible hindrances - Christmas season can get crazy).
I'm also having it be aggressively play-tested, so if you're willing to give me some feedback in exchange, send me a PM and I'll shoot you a link to the latest playtest iteration (its fully playable, unless you need help building a province-sized area to have adventures in; the final sections are all about making the whole system as new-player/new-GM friendly as possible).
I'm afraid I would be no help at the moment for playtesting. Moving and most of my group is on hiatus thanks to the plandemic. But keep me in the loop on release!
Will do... its all good on my end.
Barring work complications, end of the year (month at this point) for writing completion, then my next step is getting a Kickstarter (or equivalent) organized to pay for the rest of the artwork it needs, a professional copy editor and other production sundries with the draft rules as an immediate pledge reward (thus proving this isn't a vaporware project to backers) and physical/pdf copies of one or both books as various pledge level rewards (which will hopefully avoid any boondoggles involving oddball third-party supplied rewards).
So the next major announcement (beyond "FINALLY done with the writing! YAY!!!") will probably be on the Kickstarter sticky at the top of this board when that's ready to launch.
Thanks for the FYI- I will keep my eyes peeled.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 10, 2020, 01:02:28 PM
Quote from: dmariz_BlackUnicorn on December 10, 2020, 07:49:24 AM
It would take ten years for pazio PF1 and PF2 to die out. No?
To completely die out as gamelines? If Baizuo stopped support, sure.
But I think that at some point Baizuo will acknowledge reality; 'restructure' / downsize, and continue to exist, a Pathfinder rpg will be around for a while.
or be sold....
but I agree.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 10, 2020, 01:02:28 PM
Quote from: dmariz_BlackUnicorn on December 10, 2020, 07:49:24 AM
It would take ten years for pazio PF1 and PF2 to die out. No?
To completely die out as gamelines? If Baizuo stopped support, sure.
But I think that at some point Baizuo will acknowledge reality; 'restructure' / downsize, and continue to exist, a Pathfinder rpg will be around for a while.
I hope they keep the PF 1E core books in print for a few more years. As long as they are in print, knuckleheads can't truly label it a dead rule set. Then there's always the secondary market for books. PF 1E can be played for years to come, just as D&D 3.5 is still played today.
While Aggravating for Grognards to acknowledge, I think 3e is big enough as a whole to be its own thing similar to OD&D at this point.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 11, 2020, 09:09:47 AM
While Aggravating for Grognards to acknowledge, I think 3e is big enough as a whole to be its own thing similar to OD&D at this point.
Not only it's own thing... 3e's core mechanics were, with just slight tweaking, also the core of 4E and 5e (task resolution, action economy, the attributes and their modifiers, grid-based movement, feats as customization system, etc.).
In other words 3e is the foundation of the number one (5e) and two (PF) game systems on the market along with a host of 3rd party and derivative (ex. Mutants & Masterminds 3e, PF2) systems.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2020, 09:58:55 AM
...
Not only it's own thing... 3e's core mechanics were, with just slight tweaking, also the core of 4E and 5e (task resolution, action economy, the attributes and their modifiers, grid-based movement, feats as customization system, etc.).
...
And 3e OGL is the foundation of the OSR. Yes there are games which re-write everything and do not use it. But no 3e OGL, and the OSR would not exist in it's present form.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2020, 09:58:55 AM
In other words 3e is the foundation of the number one (5e) and two (PF) game systems on the market along with a host of 3rd party and derivative (ex. Mutants & Masterminds 3e, PF2) systems.
This was Dancey's intention with the OGL. And it succeeded brilliantly.
It is the reason why D&D has gone from the 800lb. Gorilla in the hobby, to the 80,000lb. King Kong of the hobby...
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2020, 09:58:55 AM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 11, 2020, 09:09:47 AM
While Aggravating for Grognards to acknowledge, I think 3e is big enough as a whole to be its own thing similar to OD&D at this point.
Not only it's own thing... 3e's core mechanics were, with just slight tweaking, also the core of 4E and 5e (task resolution, action economy, the attributes and their modifiers, grid-based movement, feats as customization system, etc.).
Yeah - while 5e definitely took some inspiration from bits of both 4e & earlier editions as well as adding some new bits, at its core it feels most like a streamlining and flattening of 3.x. (flattening as in the power curve) While it lost some of 3.x's depth & customization, it cleaned out a lot of the cludge (though certainly not all) and made it much easier to pick up and learn etc.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on December 11, 2020, 01:21:38 PM
Yeah - while 5e definitely took some inspiration from bits of both 4e & earlier editions as well as adding some new bits, at its core it feels most like a streamlining and flattening of 3.x. (flattening as in the power curve) While it lost some of 3.x's depth & customization, it cleaned out a lot of the cludge (though certainly not all) and made it much easier to pick up and learn etc.
Which is also why it was able to gut PF so effectively; because a cleaned up 3e is also basically a cleaned up PF.
Which in turn pretty much dictated that PF2 had to go even harder into the fiddly crunch because any other direction would essentially just be a houseruled 5e.
Basically, the only people really left out in the cold by 5e were high-crunch PF fans and those who had their favorite parts of 4E thrown under the bus (my personal peeve was Mearls' comments about how ridiculous warlords "shouting people's hands back on" was when he was perfectly aware that 4E didn't have any sort of dismemberment mechanic precisely because it relied on non-physical hit points for its mechanics; which is also why you could regain them all with a full night's rest).
Which in turn means about the only avenues outside of 5e splat production are things that specifically reject one or more elements of 5e and marketing towards that.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2020, 03:33:10 PM
Which in turn pretty much dictated that PF2 had to go even harder into the fiddly crunch because any other direction would essentially just be a houseruled 5e.
Indeed. I don't particularly LIKE the crunch that they did end up going with, but that was almost certainly the correct marketing move. (Ex: I like the vibe of the 3 action system - but the rest of the mechanics don't really feel like they leverage it properly to be a core pillar of the system. I really think they really should have leaned into it more with the spellcasting especially - such as having spells take between 1-6 actions, with major increases in power at the same spell level if it costs more actions. As it was - it still felt like an Unearthed Arcana style variant.)
But anyway - that was definitely the route to go from a business perspective. Accept your position as the crunchier/deeper D&D option and play a strong second fiddle. So long as Hasbro doesn't drop the ball again (4e), it's unlikely that another TTRPG will knock them off of their fantasy RPG throne. But just because D&D is #1 doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of market share to slice off.
Heh, shouting hands back on.
That never gets old.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on December 11, 2020, 04:09:09 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2020, 03:33:10 PM
Which in turn pretty much dictated that PF2 had to go even harder into the fiddly crunch because any other direction would essentially just be a houseruled 5e.
Indeed. I don't particularly LIKE the crunch that they did end up going with. (Ex: I like the vibe of the 3 action system - but the rest of the mechanics don't really feel like they leverage it properly to be a core pillar of the system. I really think they really should have leaned into it more with the spellcasting especially - such as having spells take between 1-6 actions, with major increases in power at the same spell level if it costs more actions.)
They do have different action economy for spells.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2020, 03:33:10 PM
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on December 11, 2020, 01:21:38 PM
Yeah - while 5e definitely took some inspiration from bits of both 4e & earlier editions as well as adding some new bits, at its core it feels most like a streamlining and flattening of 3.x. (flattening as in the power curve) While it lost some of 3.x's depth & customization, it cleaned out a lot of the cludge (though certainly not all) and made it much easier to pick up and learn etc.
Which is also why it was able to gut PF so effectively; because a cleaned up 3e is also basically a cleaned up PF.
Which in turn pretty much dictated that PF2 had to go even harder into the fiddly crunch because any other direction would essentially just be a houseruled 5e.
Basically, the only people really left out in the cold by 5e were high-crunch PF fans and those who had their favorite parts of 4E thrown under the bus (my personal peeve was Mearls' comments about how ridiculous warlords "shouting people's hands back on" was when he was perfectly aware that 4E didn't have any sort of dismemberment mechanic precisely because it relied on non-physical hit points for its mechanics; which is also why you could regain them all with a full night's rest).
Which in turn means about the only avenues outside of 5e splat production are things that specifically reject one or more elements of 5e and marketing towards that.
Eh. 5E is cleaned but vastly oversimplified and with little variation in what you can do. Every 5E cleric I've seen has relied on a few spells - Bless, Spirit Guardians, and Spiritual Hammer, while the poor Eldritch Knight who is meant to be a magical fighter just spams shield.
There is an audience there for people who come into the hobby for 5E and want something more complex. Look around on the internet and you can see that some new gamers are switching from 5e to 3.5 because they want the greater complexity.
Pathfinder 2 was a big gamble, and one that seemed unlikely to work. It really looks as if they are making the 4E mistakes all over again (the amount of people who really want to mix tactical play with their gaming seems to be pretty small). They really needed to publish a cleaned up version of Pathfinder and simplify elements of the system, but without dramatically reducing the character options. What they really needed though were designers from outside their existing pool who could point out the ridiculousness of writing things like this as a way of simplifying iterative attacks when Trailblazer had done a much better job years earlier.
QuoteThe Basics
When making a full attack, roll only one attack roll and compare your result to the target's AC. If your attack result is lower than the target's AC by 6 or more, you miss and deal no damage. If your result is lower than the target's AC by 5 or less, you deliver a glancing blow, dealing an amount of damage equal to 1/2 the minimum damage you would normally deal on a hit with the weapon you're using. Effects that trigger on a hit do not trigger on a glancing blow. If your attack result equals or exceeds the target's AC, you score a hit, plus one additional hit for every 5 by which your roll exceeds that target's AC, up to your maximum number of hits. At first level, you can score a maximum of only one hit, but at base attack bonus +6 and at every +5 to your base attack bonus thereafter, you can score another. This is shown on Table: Maximum Hits, and also matches the progression of iterative attacks you'd gain if you were using the core rules for attacks. For each hit you score, roll damage separately; damage reduction applies to each hit.
The other thing they needed was good online character building and encounter building support. GM prep was always the bug bear of 3.5 and while it's a lot easier in 5e by desgin 5e also has the huge advantage of the availabilty of software to make it even easier. (At least they have the SRD - this is one big reason why Pathfinder has survived and no one plays 4E anymore. It's too hard to play 4e without all the rules elements in one place somewhere on the net).
Probably their best way forward was to clean up Pathfinder 1 while keeping it backwards compatible which releasing their adventure paths for both Pathfinder and 5e and focusing their advertising on players who wanted more character options and a deeper system.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 11, 2020, 04:38:25 PM
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on December 11, 2020, 04:09:09 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2020, 03:33:10 PM
Which in turn pretty much dictated that PF2 had to go even harder into the fiddly crunch because any other direction would essentially just be a houseruled 5e.
Indeed. I don't particularly LIKE the crunch that they did end up going with. (Ex: I like the vibe of the 3 action system - but the rest of the mechanics don't really feel like they leverage it properly to be a core pillar of the system. I really think they really should have leaned into it more with the spellcasting especially - such as having spells take between 1-6 actions, with major increases in power at the same spell level if it costs more actions.)
They do have different action economy for spells.
A bit - but they didn't really lean into it.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on December 11, 2020, 04:49:41 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on December 11, 2020, 04:38:25 PM
They do have different action economy for spells.
A bit - but they didn't really lean into it.
They have 210 pages of spells for four main types of spell casting classes from level 1 to level 10 and the main problem is that they did not lean into having more 1 to 6 action spells?
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 09, 2020, 12:26:11 AM
Quote from: Mistwell on December 08, 2020, 11:04:41 PMThat's not what the term "vaporware" means. There is nothing vaporware about 5e.
Fair enough. Though most of 5e was promised in development and never came out. But its success is being so insubstantive that people attach whatever they want too it.
Now 5e delivered what was promised, it's just that people have big imaginations and so they took the words Mike Mearls used to describe his goals for 5e and wrote into those words much larger concepts than what was said.
The principle complaint I have seen is that people thought Mike Mearls promised 5e would allow a 1e character and a 3e character and a 4e character all in the same game at the same time or something. Which is ridiculous and never what he promised at all. This is what he actually said:
"Modularity starts with a simple core... In terms of actual rules modules, I see them as important to allowing groups to
evoke a specific feel for their campaign. That might be something like making healing less plentiful or adding more realistic injuries to evoke a grittier feel. Other groups that like miniatures play and the tactical challenges posed by combat probably want more details in the combat system. ... [we will] give people the options that they can mix and match if they choose to create the specific campaign they want."
All of those modules are in the DMG that he mentions. There are options for much slower healing. There are options for more tactical play. They made multiclassing and feats optional. There is a ton of optional stuff in the core rules, and then they added even more optional stuff in Xanathar's and now Tasha's in particular.
But people still have this imagined image of what they thought he was saying about actual support for 1e and 3e and 4e in the 5e game. I still don't know where that came from. He always said things like "evoke a feel" of an older edition, not the actual fucking edition! And he always said what he meant by "evoking a feel" of an older edition, which is these kinds of optional rules about healing or tactical play and such. People just read into it and then got pissed when the reality didn't match their imagination despite it never being the stated plan to do what they imagined it would be.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 11, 2020, 04:09:17 PM
Heh, shouting hands back on.
That never gets old.
To this day I'm torn on whether that statement was a cynical marketing ploy to play to the anti-4E crowd or if Mearls legitimately just didn't know the system he was in charge of.
While it's tempting to think the former, I also remember that brief point when Monte Cook was brought onboard for 5e and his opening article was on this great new idea they'd come up with called "passive perception"... legitimately NOT knowing that this had been part of 4E from the beginning.
Basically, it seems like no one outside of Rob Heinsoo at WotC fully grokked what 4E was supposed to be (ex. when 4E doesn't have a detailed non-combat resolution system and gives guidelines for improvising its bad design... when 5e says "rulings not rules" its good design).
Mearls definitely didn't grok it as his 'Keep on the Shadowfell' intro module is regarded as a travesty by 4E fans and a complete mismatch with the actual game's mechanics and ethos (i.e. it had a lot of trash fights in boring locations instead of glossing over minor encounters to focus on set piece battles with interesting environmental mechanics).
So after Heinsoo was laid off in the annual WotC downsizing, Mearls and co spent the rest of 4E's life trying to shove a square peg into a round hole (culminating in Essentials which broke more than it fixed).
In that respect, 5e was the right business move since Mearls and Co. couldn't leverage what they didn't care to understand. 5e is theirs from the ground up which helps immensely in being able to promote it.
Still, like the OSR and it's appeal to those who prefer the pre-WotC style of play, there's a potential market for a 4E spiritual successor there. It's not a D&D-sized market (nothing else is), but for any non-WotC RPG company it would have been seen as an absolute smash hit.
Quote from: TJS on December 11, 2020, 04:44:03 PMIt really looks as if they are making the 4E mistakes all over again (the amount of people who really want to mix tactical play with their gaming seems to be pretty small).
To be fair, that's one of the things a lot of people misread about 4E, speaking as someone who games with a lot of 4E fans and whose game system began as a spiritual successor to it.
4E isn't all that much more tactical than when 3.5e (or 5e) is played on a grid instead of theatre of the mind. This gets especially obvious when you stop playing 4E on a grid (which was probably 2/3 of my experience with it).
I know, I know... "spaces" is inherently gamist sounding, but it's just a unit of measurement... one of the first and easiest changes made to my own system was to replace it with "paces" (specifically the Roman pace, which was two steps or about 5 feet) and suddenly people had no more issue visualizing 6 paces than they did 30 feet.
Anyway, the main draw for 4E among the fans I interacted with was never really the tactical side... once your party worked out a couple tricks it was just variations on that theme. The draws from my experience were;
-Big Damn Heroes. While there's nothing wrong with zero-to-hero, in my experience three quarters of all campaigns that start at level 1 peter out before you get out of the "zero" stage due to real life (changing work schedules, a kid has started a new extracurricular that happens to be at game time, etc.).
So when the vast majority of your play experience is with the zero-end, sometimes you just want to start out a campaign as Conan or Aragorn so you get a chance to actually experience the hero-end for once. 4E starts you out at end of the zero-stage (about equal to a level 4-5 in 3e) and does a good job of keeping you in that sweet spot for all of heroic (level 1-10) and about half of Paragon (11-20) tier (level 16 is generally regarded among those I know as the sweet spot between interesting options and too much complexity... one of the main reasons I capped my game at 15 levels).
- Relative parity between the martials and casters; particularly after the wild imbalance of 3e. Not just in raw power, but in giving the fighters more interesting things to do than just "I hit it with my sword" without being penalized for it (one of the biggest problems with the feat system was that it relegated many options downright dangerous to employ normally in order to make the feats worth taking... then really limited the number of feats you could have at a reasonable level).
- Niche protection via clear roles. This connects with the previous one a bit in that 3e spellcasters could basically become better than non-casters at basically whatever they determined to be better at, but the roles of defender, leader, controller and striker gave each class a particular way to shine at the same time by prioritizing different things for them (defenders shined every time they kept their allies from getting hit, controllers every time their powers forced the enemy into catch-22s, leaders every time their buffs enabled an ally to pull off something cool and strikers with the big damage numbers).
- No one has to play the cleric. Because each role had a specific set of things it was designed to be good at (albeit in different ways; clerics and warlords could both buff and heal, but clerics were the best at healing and warlords the best at in-combat buffing) you didn't so much need specific classes and because each power source (martial, arcane, divine, primal, etc.) had a class with each role you could fill a role without sacrificing a particular theme.
As an aside on this one; the cleric as healer is such a D&D-ism that appears nowhere else in fantasy (except fantasy derived from D&D) that it actually makes it quite difficult to emulate more common bands of heroes you'd see in fiction. 4E solves that because of the roles and even allows completely non-magical settings like Robin Hood to be run out of the box without any need for house rules beyond "only human, only martial classes."
- Easy to run. XP budgets for combat so the DM knows what to expect out of a fight (i.e. will it be a cakewalk, will it be a TPK or somewhere in between), the "Monster Manual on a Business Card" and a very "rulings not rules" approach to anything outside of combat made it a breeze to prep and improvise with from thr DM side.
It also encouraged resolving trash mobs with a few simple rolls or even hand waving them entirely so instead of needing to prep for every last fight in an attritional dungeon, you just needed to prep a few big fights (this was where Mearls went most wrong in KotSF, he included way too many tedious trash mob fights instead of focusing on a comparative handful of interesting set pieces... the Kobold Hall in the back of the DMG is a much better guide for the combat portions of a 4E adventure).
Tactics generally came in dead last in terms of actual interest. Generally much more important was combats that had something more interesting than just two sides facing off in a mostly featureless room. Pits you could knock people into, traps you also had to avoid or disarm in the middle of a fight, even just stairs you need to climb to reach the archers firing down on you that's guarded by some brutes or soldiers... that was always far more important than just a tactical encounter.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 11, 2020, 05:17:36 PM
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on December 11, 2020, 04:49:41 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on December 11, 2020, 04:38:25 PM
They do have different action economy for spells.
A bit - but they didn't really lean into it.
They have 210 pages of spells for four main types of spell casting classes from level 1 to level 10 and the main problem is that they did not lean into having more 1 to 6 action spells?
I'm saying that they didn't lean into making the 3 action economy and how it could really change gameplay. It felt like it was slapped onto the system rather than being a major building block of the system from the ground up. The spells were largely just an easy example of what they could have done with it.
Quote from: Mistwell on December 11, 2020, 06:04:40 PMThe principle complaint I have seen is that people thought Mike Mearls promised 5e would allow a 1e character and a 3e character and a 4e character all in the same game at the same time or something. Which is ridiculous and never what he promised at all.
While I doubted he would ever reach something like that, I'm pretty sure he did exactly that (Just the D&D website keeps getting purged).
Yes those side rules all exist-but they are flabby as shit. A paragraph written on a cocktail napkin is technically a 'module' but it's not cleverly integrated or executed. Even PF with side rules I don't consider all that great would dedicate a few pages, maybe some character options to the side rule 'modules'.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2020, 06:20:40 PM
Tactics generally came in dead last in terms of actual interest. Generally much more important was combats that had something more interesting than just two sides facing off in a mostly featureless room. Pits you could knock people into, traps you also had to avoid or disarm in the middle of a fight, even just stairs you need to climb to reach the archers firing down on you that's guarded by some brutes or soldiers... that was always far more important than just a tactical encounter.
I feel it just ended up straitjacketing everything into a combat minigame. Which it was best at. It was best at the Combat minigame over any other edition. But it came at the expense of creativity outside of it.
In 1e-2e you could make more organic worlds with creatures that didn't match up hit dice to the PCs. It was still possible in 3e but harder. In 4e this makes the maths utterly implode.
Often enough my PCs would bypass scenarios with creativity & cleverness (We make a pit trap using X and then throw a bomb in there and flood it with water), but 4e channels it all back into the minigame (you need a level 5 bomb for a level 5 enemy, and you need level 5 water-otherwise the damage isn't up to snuff). The worldbuilding was just inorganic.
But it was truly the champion of the combat minigame.
Paizo went WOKE & found themselves abandoned. The Paizo boards were dumpster-fires easily seen from space.
They failed.
It's why WOTC has been super-cautious about embracing WOKE. Tasha's book should've been woke, but look at how WOTC wasn't so woke. Look how so.
Look at the hobby.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 11, 2020, 08:54:32 PM
I feel it just ended up straitjacketing everything into a combat minigame. Which it was best at. It was best at the Combat minigame over any other edition. But it came at the expense of creativity outside of it.
In 1e-2e you could make more organic worlds with creatures that didn't match up hit dice to the PCs. It was still possible in 3e but harder. In 4e this makes the maths utterly implode.
Often enough my PCs would bypass scenarios with creativity & cleverness (We make a pit trap using X and then throw a bomb in there and flood it with water), but 4e channels it all back into the minigame (you need a level 5 bomb for a level 5 enemy, and you need level 5 water-otherwise the damage isn't up to snuff). The worldbuilding was just inorganic.
Only if you let it straightjacket you.
We had just as many, if not more, creatively bypassed scenarios in 4E as in any other edition. We had grossly mismatched fights where the only option to survive was to run (the only difference from previous editions being you were generally tough enough that you wouldn't be dropped before realizing you were outmatched and actually have the capability of fleeing) and others where we utterly curb-stomped the opposition.
Mileages may vary obviously, but a lot depended on how you chose to engage with the material. We had a preponderance of DMs more interested in clues, puzzles and social interaction than combat, so combat just wasn't the central thing. For a while we averaged one combat every other session and currently its more like one combat every 3-4 sessions. Lots more skill use, lots more non-combat feats, lots more non-combat utility powers.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2020, 09:07:37 PM
Only if you let it straightjacket you.
That's an intellectual copout. If I can't criticize a system for something (because I can 'bypass it'), then I can't criticize or compliment anything at all.
Eh.
What 4E does (and 13th Age which to my mind is a manifest improvement) is a long way from 3.5 and Pathfinder 1 does and that's the issue I think.
A lot of the things that 3.5 was criticised for were also it's strengths. Preparation is far too involved but the system does help make a solidity to the game world. What you get for that complexity is ways to represent all kinds of things. In Pathfinder you can be a tiefling descended from a range of different outisders. Sorcerers have a large number of bloodlines. If you want to play a Barbarian with a sorcerer bloodline that rages and draws on his magical blood while raging there's even a class for that (Bloodrager). These things are not just mechanically different but feel different in a way that actually meshes with the concept. The price for this of course is endless options and complexity.
4E is slightly less complex in character building (but not really that much, especially by the end) - and better balanced, but the rules are aimed more at providing gameplay rather then realising a concept. As the edition that followed on from 3E it sort of gestured at the same sort of thing but at a certain point you realised that your paragon path which made your barbarian a scion of the volcano gods just offered you a few slightly different combat powers. You can of course bring your own flavour and play the concept without mechanical support - but if that's the kind of thing you want the complexity to actually do, then you'll be disappointed and you may end up feeling that if you're going to bring your own flavour you might as well move on to a simpler system.
That said, it's not that bad at what it's trying to, and the combat game can be fun if you've got enough time to actually play through it. The main reason it is pretty much dead is that it doesn't have an SRD and the character generator is defunct, which means it's too much effort to use it with new players. But ultimately, I don't think the kind of complexity it offers is what players introduced to 5E, and want more, are likely to be looking for.
The main problem with 4e was that it revolved around having a certain number of combats per adventuring day and that each of those combats was never truly threatening only serving to drain the party of resources and powers so that the very final boss fight would maybe be challenging.
What that meant in practice was very long drawn out fights where the outcome was never in doubt but you had to finish otherwise the party would not suffer the requisite resource drain. In fact fights used to take so very long that often the choice was to finish the game early or to take photos of the game board so that we could continue the following week.
Pathfinder 2e at least managed to solve that problem, fights are much more dynamic and deadly.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 11, 2020, 09:47:01 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2020, 09:07:37 PM
Only if you let it straightjacket you.
That's an intellectual copout. If I can't criticize a system for something (because I can 'bypass it'), then I can't criticize or compliment anything at all.
It's not a matter of bypassing; it's using the material as intended.
I've read a lot of interviews with the 4E devs and they chose rules lite for non-combat for basically the same reason Kevin Seimbedia did for all his Palladium games;
Basically, a tight simulationist system for those portions wasn't needed because those situations were generally less complex (at least relative to tracking everything going on in a 5 vs. 5 melee) and also more nuanced (trying to convince a king to send troops to assist isn't as binary as hitting or missing with an attack) than combat. Also, outside of traps (which they wrote to use combat stats and action economies) they also felt the immediate consequences were not so immediate life and death.
To hear it told, the only reason we had distinct skills in 4E vs. something more like his freeform backgrounds in 13th Age was too much pushback from the side that wanted more hard simulation in the system.
Combat was detailed because they felt the stakes were high enough that it needed to be and the complexity of multiple creatures acting more or less simultaneously made it harder for a rules lite approach to resolve (save-or-die was something they were explicitly trying to remove from the equation).
But you weren't expected to be engaging in combat any more often than in prior editions. Less in some ways as trash mobs like lone castle guards were intended to be handled without even going into the full combat, just a check or two to see if you can knock him cold/slit his throat without being noticed and before he alerts anyone (blows whistle/rings bell/etc.).
So we didn't. We weren't bypassing mechanics, we used them exactly as often as they were needed for the campaign.
Similarly, the point of the XP Budget was never "you can throw X threat at the party and no more." It was "if you throw X threat at the party Y is likely to occur. If you throw 2X at the party Z is likely to occur."
A DM can throw an Elder Red Dragon (level 30 solo) at a 1st level party in 4E just as easily as in any other edition; he just can't have the excuse of "I didn't know it would be that bad of a fight."
Basically, the only thing 4E takes away is a dick DM's ability to pretend the TPK they just inflicted on the party was an accident.
And for the record, we regularly met things well beyond our ability in 4E. The DM though put enough warning signs into the adventure though that we realized we should advance with caution and when we were sure we were outmatched that we should either bargain or flee.
In one case we met a Balor at level 2 and because he wanted us to suffer, he banished us all to Dark Sun. "But, Chris," you're saying, "Balor's in 4E don't have the Planeshift spell." Except they certainly can have planeshift in 4E. The DMG/MM discuss how monster combat stat blocks are just that... for combat. Outside of combat monsters can have whatever abilities the DM thinks are appropriate for it to have.
That's not bypassing, it's interacting with it as intended.
The problem was a lot of people dragged a whole lot of pre-4E assumptions into how they ran games with it (monsters are completely defined by their stat block being one of them). 4E runs horribly if you try to run it with 3e-style assumptions about encounters and needing specific rules for non-combat tasks.
You could really see it we got a DM who came into it with 4E as their first RPG system and their prep was reading the 4E material. The other DM type who did REALLY well with 4E were ones who jumped right from AD&D into 4E and skipped 3e entirely because they grokked the free form non-combat side a LOT better than the previously 3e DMs.
Now, admittedly, my experiences with 4E are anecdotal. But your criticisms are too. If 4E was played the way you experienced it, those criticisms are valid for how it was played. But that was not the only way it was played.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 12, 2020, 09:13:20 AM
It's not a matter of bypassing; it's using the material as intended.
And material, as intended, asks the GM to only use monsters in the specific listed way. Which means not bypassing the intended level brackets and not using a high-level normal monster for a 'Solo' encounter. And as intended asks the GM to keep the PC in a very specific band of power as asked by the item parcel system. Saying 'Well in my games we bypass it', is the opposite of material as intended. Your shifting goalposts.
Now before I go on: I have very many things I find admirable about D&D 4e, and in fact, I usually want to defend it when it gains criticism. And I RESPECT the ambition behind it very much. I respect 4e way more then I respect 5e, or even PF 1e or PF 2e.
But you're trying to sell a cow as a horse here. And I really like cows, but it's not a horse.
QuoteBasically, a tight simulationist system for those portions wasn't needed because those situations were generally less complex
99.9% of all Tabletop RPGs have more in-depth combat systems than they have for anything else. Because as you put it, that's when things get more high stakes and people are less willing to abstract such things. 4e is not unique with that sort of reasoning or design. But 4e is the one that gets singled and criticized for this the most.
And that's because it's the MOST combat lopsided, and the least developed on the everything else scale in ratio of what exists. It is the MOST like a videogame where your options in 'combat' exist on a separate reality than your options outside of combat. In a videogame, you may be the lord of all elemental magic, but it manifests as just a '+100 dmg bonus to fire spells'. You may be a master illusionist but it manifests as a '+25% confusion chance for your light mana' spells'. You may be a ninja, but that grants you a '+55% crit chance with the dagger weapon class'.
Your elemental lord can't just dispel the flames around the keep of the lost one (because you need to get the key of zazerkin at the end of the dungeon)
Your illusionist can't trick the hostage exchange by disguising your warrior as the oracle maiden of sunrovia (because the story isn't designed that way)
And your Ninja can't just sneak into the pirate ship and take the research notes you need and bypass the boss fight (because they programmed that dungeon damnit).
4e might be slightly less extreme than that (the Ninja can sneak I guess), but it's still applicable. You may be a paragon of Illusions, but you can make a Illusionary wall once every day (At like level 8). Unless of course, you play mother may I with the GM that suddenly stops existing the second combat starts (Again like videogame logic).
QuoteBut you weren't expected to be engaging in combat any more often than in prior editions. Less in some ways as trash mobs like lone castle guards were intended to be handled without even going into the full combat, just a check or two to see if you can knock him cold/slit his throat without being noticed and before he alerts anyone (blows whistle/rings bell/etc.).
Then they utterly botched this implication in ANY of their published adventures, which were combat gauntlets, with monsters that purely existed within the listed power bands.
All the things you listed as 'unique design goals' for 4e are not elements unique to itself. It's not that people 'didn't get it' or 'brought the wrong assumptions'. All D&D editions very much expected a sort of improv approach to the use of your abilities, with specifics mainly for combat.
4e just has the most ridgid combat abilities, with the loosest and least helpful suggestions for improv for anything else. With such a lopsided framing, its 4es fault for discouraging improv. With an extended GM book for handling combat, not improv.
Compare 4e to say...Godbound. It's very specific with the uses of your powers in combat and pretty loose with everything else (to the point of dispensing with skills altogether in favor of backgrounds). But it makes use of those 'out of combat' abilities much more organic, and places having them at all on a pedestal similar in value to combat abilities.
Godbound also doesn't waste space. 4e has 3/4ths its pages dedicated to lists of very similar combat powers and abilities that could be condensed into a 'make your own' system with 3 pages.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 12, 2020, 01:07:42 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 12, 2020, 09:13:20 AM
It's not a matter of bypassing; it's using the material as intended.
And material, as intended, asks the GM to only use monsters in the specific listed way. Which means not bypassing the intended level brackets and not using a high-level normal monster for a 'Solo' encounter. And as intended asks the GM to keep the PC in a very specific band of power as asked by the item parcel system. Saying 'Well in my games we bypass it', is the opposite of material as intended. Your shifting goalposts.
Now before I go on: I have very many things I find admirable about D&D 4e, and in fact, I usually want to defend it when it gains criticism. And I RESPECT the ambition behind it very much. I respect 4e way more then I respect 5e, or even PF 1e or PF 2e.
But you're trying to sell a cow as a horse here. And I really like cows, but it's not a horse.
QuoteBasically, a tight simulationist system for those portions wasn't needed because those situations were generally less complex
99.9% of all Tabletop RPGs have more in-depth combat systems than they have for anything else. Because as you put it, that's when things get more high stakes and people are less willing to abstract such things. 4e is not unique with that sort of reasoning or design. But 4e is the one that gets singled and criticized for this the most.
And that's because it's the MOST combat lopsided, and the least developed on the everything else scale in ratio of what exists. It is the MOST like a videogame where your options in 'combat' exist on a separate reality than your options outside of combat. In a videogame, you may be the lord of all elemental magic, but it manifests as just a '+100 dmg bonus to fire spells'. You may be a master illusionist but it manifests as a '+25% confusion chance for your light mana' spells'. You may be a ninja, but that grants you a '+55% crit chance with the dagger weapon class'.
Your elemental lord can't just dispel the flames around the keep of the lost one (because you need to get the key of zazerkin at the end of the dungeon)
Your illusionist can't trick the hostage exchange by disguising your warrior as the oracle maiden of sunrovia (because the story isn't designed that way)
And your Ninja can't just sneak into the pirate ship and take the research notes you need and bypass the boss fight (because they programmed that dungeon damnit).
4e might be slightly less extreme than that (the Ninja can sneak I guess), but it's still applicable. You may be a paragon of Illusions, but you can make a Illusionary wall once every day (At like level 8). Unless of course, you play mother may I with the GM that suddenly stops existing the second combat starts (Again like videogame logic).
QuoteBut you weren't expected to be engaging in combat any more often than in prior editions. Less in some ways as trash mobs like lone castle guards were intended to be handled without even going into the full combat, just a check or two to see if you can knock him cold/slit his throat without being noticed and before he alerts anyone (blows whistle/rings bell/etc.).
Then they utterly botched this implication in ANY of their published adventures, which were combat gauntlets, with monsters that purely existed within the listed power bands.
All the things you listed as 'unique design goals' for 4e are not elements unique to itself. It's not that people 'didn't get it' or 'brought the wrong assumptions'. All D&D editions very much expected a sort of improv approach to the use of your abilities, with specifics mainly for combat.
4e just has the most ridgid combat abilities, with the loosest and least helpful suggestions for improv for anything else. With such a lopsided framing, its 4es fault for discouraging improv. With an extended GM book for handling combat, not improv.
Compare 4e to say...Godbound. It's very specific with the uses of your powers in combat and pretty loose with everything else (to the point of dispensing with skills altogether in favor of backgrounds). But it makes use of those 'out of combat' abilities much more organic, and places having them at all on a pedestal similar in value to combat abilities.
Godbound also doesn't waste space. 4e has 3/4ths its pages dedicated to lists of very similar combat powers and abilities that could be condensed into a 'make your own' system with 5 pages.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on December 11, 2020, 04:09:09 PM
... So long as Hasbro doesn't drop the ball again (4e), it's unlikely that another TTRPG will knock them off of their fantasy RPG throne.
I agree, it would take a WOTC own goal of serious proportions to give a competitor another chance to bring D&D down a peg or two.
For what it's worth, I do think that WOTC will find the 50th anniversary of D&D an absolutely irresistible opportunity to do something to the game.
And given their current woke directives, I don't think it will be good for them.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on December 11, 2020, 04:09:09 PM
But just because D&D is #1 doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of market share to slice off.
In the past yes. D&D was the 800lb Gorilla of the hobby, but there was table space to spare.
In post OGL 5e era though: D&D is the 80,000lb King Kong of the hobby and everyone else scrambles for the scraps that fall off the table.
Quote from: TJS on December 11, 2020, 04:44:03 PM
Eh. 5E is cleaned but vastly oversimplified and with little variation in what you can do. Every 5E cleric I've seen has relied on a few spells - Bless, Spirit Guardians, and Spiritual Hammer, while the poor Eldritch Knight who is meant to be a magical fighter just spams shield.
...
I would call 5e a solid mid crunch game. Far from oversimplified. In fact it has lots of fiddly bits if you are actually trying to play RAW, and not in the new handwavium Mercer style.
The lack of variation IMHO is due to the way that "subclasses" work in the game. Once you hit 3rd level in 5e you get an array of choices. But his is a choice that is only made once.
The advancement track is then on rails from that point on. they could have taken a different rout with the class abilities. Made their selection more freeform at the various levels, and had Classes that a player can play without being the same every time.
Quote from: TJS on December 11, 2020, 04:44:03 PM
...The other thing they needed was good online character building and encounter building support. GM prep was always the bug bear of 3.5 and while it's a lot easier in 5e by desgin 5e also has the huge advantage of the availabilty of software to make it even easier. (At least they have the SRD - this is one big reason why Pathfinder has survived and no one plays 4E anymore. It's too hard to play 4e without all the rules elements in one place somewhere on the net).
...
I've always viewed the need for an app or other software to make a game 'playable' at the table, to be an indication of overcomplication and bad design.
Quote from: Jaeger link=topic=42997.msg1156535#msg1156535
I would call 5e a solid mid crunch game. Far from oversimplified. In fact it has lots of fiddly bits if you are actually trying to play RAW, and not in the new handwavium Mercer style.
The lack of variation IMHO is due to the way that "subclasses" work in the game. Once you hit 3rd level in 5e you get an array of choices. But his is a choice that is only made once.
The advancement track is then on rails from that point on. they could have taken a different rout with the class abilities. Made their selection more freeform at the various levels, and had Classes that a player can play without being the same every time.
It's both mid cruch AND oversimplified. The two are not mutually exclusive. For a game with the amount of crunch that it has, it's oversimplified. It's also weirdly inconsistent in that regard (Charge was removed presumably to make TOTM easier but spells with precise dimensions remain). And yes, the straightjacket of subclasses is a big part of the problem, as is the ubiquity of certain spells and options.
I think D&D getting to what looks like huge levels, woke or not, is a good thing. Lots of people started with D&D in most of the generations of rpg players, and branched out to other games to give them a try. I think the other games benefit from D&D being larger. The more players created the more people who end up trying other games. It would be nice to see a real competitor come along (GW seems fine with just lending a license out instead of getting serious about RPGs, if they decided to go all in with RPGs they would be the only competition), but I think with the digital age and access to publishing, the rpg variety is at an all time high.
Quote from: TJS on December 14, 2020, 05:08:49 AM
Quote from: Jaeger link=topic=42997.msg1156535#msg1156535
I would call 5e a solid mid crunch game. Far from oversimplified. In fact it has lots of fiddly bits if you are actually trying to play RAW, and not in the new handwavium Mercer style.
The lack of variation IMHO is due to the way that "subclasses" work in the game. Once you hit 3rd level in 5e you get an array of choices. But his is a choice that is only made once.
The advancement track is then on rails from that point on. they could have taken a different rout with the class abilities. Made their selection more freeform at the various levels, and had Classes that a player can play without being the same every time.
It's both mid cruch AND oversimplified the two are not mutually exclusive. For a game with the amount of crunch that it has it's oversimplified. It's also weirdly inconsistent in that regard (charge was removed presumably to make TOTM easier but spells with precise dimensions remain). And yes, the straightjacket of subclasses is a big part of the problem, as is the ubiquity of certain spells and options.
Yeah, 5e is an odd beast in that its core components, like level progression and the way roll modifiers work (with everything riding on a Proficiency modifier that's the same for everyone and affects EVERYTHING), are vastly oversimplified. But then class structure is overblown with bloated fiddly features that you get every level, mounted on top of almost artificially distinct classes that railroad you along a predetermined path with few options, pointlessly adding to bookkeeping while allowing little flexibility at the same time. Every time I look at it I just want to strip classes and levels away and just play a straight skill-based system with a 6 level maximum (like the +6 Proficiency modifier) added to a d20, which would be tons more simple and straightforward, yet also more granular and flexible.
But instead we're struck with an oversimplified core with few meaningful options, where everyone feels the same, and a bloat of pointless class features that exist just to pad a 20 level progression in a game that would otherwise give you almost nothing per level, since you only get a +1 Proficiency modifier every 4 levels after 1st.
Well, I think it says a lot that, even in a thread dedicated to Pathfinder 2e, the discussion inevitably turns to Dungeons and Dragons...
Because Pathfinder is Dungeons and Dragons without the Branding?
Quote from: Shasarak on December 14, 2020, 08:14:08 PM
Because Pathfinder is Dungeons and Dragons without the Branding?
I also write terrible fantasy heartbreakers that don't justify publication...
Quote from: Shasarak on December 14, 2020, 08:14:08 PM
Because Pathfinder is Dungeons and Dragons without the Branding?
Exactly on edition warriors insist on wanting to making a difference between the two.
Most of the traffic on their website at least to me seems to lower than usual. Then again they jumped on the woke bandwagon and pretty much let the same woke inmates run loose so they have no one else to blame
Quote from: KingCheops on December 14, 2020, 09:33:51 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on December 14, 2020, 08:14:08 PM
Because Pathfinder is Dungeons and Dragons without the Branding?
I also write terrible fantasy heartbreakers that don't justify publication...
I bet that you also make toast.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 14, 2020, 10:17:50 PM
Quote from: KingCheops on December 14, 2020, 09:33:51 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on December 14, 2020, 08:14:08 PM
Because Pathfinder is Dungeons and Dragons without the Branding?
I also write terrible fantasy heartbreakers that don't justify publication...
I bet that you also make toast.
And he probably doesn't even put butter on it, the heathen.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 14, 2020, 08:14:08 PM
Because Pathfinder is Dungeons and Dragons without the Branding?
Yeah, just like conversations about Corvettes inevitably turn into conversations about Camaros, because they are both automobiles made by Chevrolet.
Or maybe there is some other reason...
Quote from: sureshot on December 14, 2020, 09:50:23 PM
Exactly on edition warriors insist on wanting to making a difference between the two.
So expressing a preference for certain mechanics over others is "edition warring"? Interesting take. So I guess saying that mechanically 1e>5e>3e>4e is a downright jihad...
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 12, 2020, 01:07:42 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 12, 2020, 09:13:20 AM
It's not a matter of bypassing; it's using the material as intended.
And material, as intended, asks the GM to only use monsters in the specific listed way. Which means not bypassing the intended level brackets and not using a high-level normal monster for a 'Solo' encounter. And as intended asks the GM to keep the PC in a very specific band of power as asked by the item parcel system. Saying 'Well in my games we bypass it', is the opposite of material as intended. Your shifting goalposts.
Now before I go on: I have very many things I find admirable about D&D 4e, and in fact, I usually want to defend it when it gains criticism. And I RESPECT the ambition behind it very much. I respect 4e way more then I respect 5e, or even PF 1e or PF 2e.
But you're trying to sell a cow as a horse here. And I really like cows, but it's not a horse.
QuoteBasically, a tight simulationist system for those portions wasn't needed because those situations were generally less complex
99.9% of all Tabletop RPGs have more in-depth combat systems than they have for anything else. Because as you put it, that's when things get more high stakes and people are less willing to abstract such things. 4e is not unique with that sort of reasoning or design. But 4e is the one that gets singled and criticized for this the most.
And that's because it's the MOST combat lopsided, and the least developed on the everything else scale in ratio of what exists. It is the MOST like a videogame where your options in 'combat' exist on a separate reality than your options outside of combat. In a videogame, you may be the lord of all elemental magic, but it manifests as just a '+100 dmg bonus to fire spells'. You may be a master illusionist but it manifests as a '+25% confusion chance for your light mana' spells'. You may be a ninja, but that grants you a '+55% crit chance with the dagger weapon class'.
Your elemental lord can't just dispel the flames around the keep of the lost one (because you need to get the key of zazerkin at the end of the dungeon)
Your illusionist can't trick the hostage exchange by disguising your warrior as the oracle maiden of sunrovia (because the story isn't designed that way)
And your Ninja can't just sneak into the pirate ship and take the research notes you need and bypass the boss fight (because they programmed that dungeon damnit).
4e might be slightly less extreme than that (the Ninja can sneak I guess), but it's still applicable. You may be a paragon of Illusions, but you can make a Illusionary wall once every day (At like level 8). Unless of course, you play mother may I with the GM that suddenly stops existing the second combat starts (Again like videogame logic).
QuoteBut you weren't expected to be engaging in combat any more often than in prior editions. Less in some ways as trash mobs like lone castle guards were intended to be handled without even going into the full combat, just a check or two to see if you can knock him cold/slit his throat without being noticed and before he alerts anyone (blows whistle/rings bell/etc.).
Then they utterly botched this implication in ANY of their published adventures, which were combat gauntlets, with monsters that purely existed within the listed power bands.
All the things you listed as 'unique design goals' for 4e are not elements unique to itself. It's not that people 'didn't get it' or 'brought the wrong assumptions'. All D&D editions very much expected a sort of improv approach to the use of your abilities, with specifics mainly for combat.
4e just has the most ridgid combat abilities, with the loosest and least helpful suggestions for improv for anything else. With such a lopsided framing, its 4es fault for discouraging improv. With an extended GM book for handling combat, not improv.
Compare 4e to say...Godbound. It's very specific with the uses of your powers in combat and pretty loose with everything else (to the point of dispensing with skills altogether in favor of backgrounds). But it makes use of those 'out of combat' abilities much more organic, and places having them at all on a pedestal similar in value to combat abilities.
Godbound also doesn't waste space. 4e has 3/4ths its pages dedicated to lists of very similar combat powers and abilities that could be condensed into a 'make your own' system with 3 pages.
I've noticed that you don't see people criticising 13th Age, even though it shares similarities with D&D 4E? Most of the time comments about 13th Age are very positive; because 13th Age doesn't claim to be the current edition of D&D, with all others being out of print. 13th Age doesn't have to carry that baggage, because it's not labeled D&D. It's it's own thing.
If only WOTC had done that to start with. They could have given 4E a totally different name, and left 3.5 in print; though possibly with a slower release schedule. What if 4E didn't say D&D on the cover?
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 15, 2020, 10:39:42 AM
Quote from: Shasarak on December 14, 2020, 08:14:08 PM
Because Pathfinder is Dungeons and Dragons without the Branding?
Yeah, just like conversations about Corvettes inevitably turn into conversations about Camaros, because they are both automobiles made by Chevrolet.
Or maybe there is some other reason...
No it is more like talk about Blue Corvettes inevitably turning into conversations about Red Corvettes.
Quote from: Razor 007 on December 15, 2020, 01:35:22 PM
I've noticed that you don't see people criticising 13th Age, even though it shares similarities with D&D 4E? Most of the time comments about 13th Age are very positive; because 13th Age doesn't claim to be the current edition of D&D, with all others being out of print. 13th Age doesn't have to carry that baggage, because it's not labeled D&D. It's it's own thing.
If only WOTC had done that to start with. They could have given 4E a totally different name, and left 3.5 in print; though possibly with a slower release schedule. What if 4E didn't say D&D on the cover?
4E would have been more welcomed without the D&D branding. Almost all the people I played with for the first few months it was out had the same issues...
too much like a video game
all classes felt the same with different names for their abilities
too fiddly compared to even 3.5/PF
We did think it was one of the better organized PHBs for new players.
Interestingly enough, all of us actually enjoy 13th Age when we play.
Granted, these are just one-shots...although we have used the same characters at different levels sometimes.
While 13th Age is similar to 4E in many respects, it removes a bunch of fiddly clutter and doesn't say D&D on the cover.
As an aside, I actually use the 13th Age magic item 'power bands by level' and the item 'downsides' in my heavily house-ruled 5E Primeval Thule campaign because it fits well in a low-magic S&S style game.
As for PF2, not a chance...My house cat playing with some dice and a magic 8-ball, will get more play-testing done and make better rules interpretations in a week than those idiots can make in a year.
Played PF for a number of years but finally couldn't stomach the level of game-design ignorance the further along it got.
Quote from: TJS on December 14, 2020, 05:08:49 AM...
It's both mid cruch AND oversimplified. The two are not mutually exclusive. For a game with the amount of crunch that it has, it's oversimplified. It's also weirdly inconsistent in that regard (Charge was removed presumably to make TOTM easier but spells with precise dimensions remain). And yes, the straightjacket of subclasses is a big part of the problem, as is the ubiquity of certain spells and options.
Ok, I get what you are saying - what you are calling oversimplification; I'd call lack of choice, lack of mechanical variation, subclasses on rails, or how you noted it: 'straightjacketing'. Or, just BAD game design.
We are essentially in agreement on the end result.
5e as I have been told IRL – is the all about having fun edition that doesn't put any of those pesky restriction on player choice, something, something...
So pick which of the 93 different races you want to play, and just don't think about and handwave most of the rest as you tell your character's "story".
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 15, 2020, 10:45:15 AM
So expressing a preference for certain mechanics over others is "edition warring"? Interesting take. So I guess saying that mechanically 1e>5e>3e>4e is a downright jihad...
Only on the big purple. You literally can't compare systems, or give a personal value judgement at that place without a mod warning. But then again that place is just one big jihad at this point.
Here you can tell the other guy that if they actually play the hot mess that is AD&D1e RAW using all the rules that they are full of it up to their eyeballs.
Quote from: Razor 007 on December 15, 2020, 01:35:22 PM
...I've noticed that you don't see people criticising 13th Age, even though it shares similarities with D&D 4E? ...
Shares similarities is the key phrase.
It trimmed down a lot of nonsense, and made the system workable for more than battlemat gaming.
Also, you get a lot less critiques because almost no one plays it.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 15, 2020, 08:04:45 AM
...And he probably doesn't even put butter on it, the heathen.
That shit's just not right.
Sometimes you just have to take a stand. And if toast is on offer - it must have butter.
Not margarine, not that "I can't believe it's not..." crap.
Butter.
Dairy allergy? No Excuse.
Have some fucking manners; you better be able to reach into the back of your fridge and make sure your guests will be able to eat their toast like civilized people. (Some jam or honey would also not be amiss...)
Anything less is an insult to Humanity, Un-American, and marks you as a soulless being devoid of all goodness.
And now that we got that important shit out of the way; back to debating the finer points of elfgames.
Greetings!
Thinking about PF, hearing all of the passionate critiques of it from people that have experience playing the PF system for years, makes me wonder--seeing that most of Paizo staff, along with Green Ronin staff, have been long-time employees of WOTC, and have a considerable pedigree of writing and game development experience--many of them making excellent contributions for 3E previously--how can they seemingly fuck up PF so terribly?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on December 15, 2020, 09:25:32 PM
Thinking about PF, hearing all of the passionate critiques of it from people that have experience playing the PF system for years, makes me wonder--seeing that most of Paizo staff, along with Green Ronin staff, have been long-time employees of WOTC, and have a considerable pedigree of writing and game development experience--many of them making excellent contributions for 3E previously--how can they seemingly fuck up PF so terribly?
Messing up is what happens when you're more concerned with some priority other than trying to build the best game system you can make. Pushing a woke agenda takes focus off other things.
Another element that can add to bad design is mistaking the loudest voices for the majority. One of PF1's initial problems was listening to people who didn't really want certain broken things fixed and were vocal enough that they kept a lot better of good earlier fixes from being implemented in the final version (Some people called it 3.75e, but I think 3.6e is probably more accurate for the initial core books).
Finally, in the case of PF2, as I mentioned earlier, 5e's design served to box Paizo in on directions they could take it without it starting to look like a 5e clone. Fiddly bits isn't for everyone, but 5e left them no good alternatives.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 15, 2020, 10:02:31 PM
Quote from: SHARK on December 15, 2020, 09:25:32 PM
Thinking about PF, hearing all of the passionate critiques of it from people that have experience playing the PF system for years, makes me wonder--seeing that most of Paizo staff, along with Green Ronin staff, have been long-time employees of WOTC, and have a considerable pedigree of writing and game development experience--many of them making excellent contributions for 3E previously--how can they seemingly fuck up PF so terribly?
Messing up is what happens when you're more concerned with some priority other than trying to build the best game system you can make. Pushing a woke agenda takes focus off other things.
Another element that can add to bad design is mistaking the loudest voices for the majority. One of PF1's initial problems was listening to people who didn't really want certain broken things fixed and were vocal enough that they kept a lot better of good earlier fixes from being implemented in the final version (Some people called it 3.75e, but I think 3.6e is probably more accurate for the initial core books).
Finally, in the case of PF2, as I mentioned earlier, 5e's design served to box Paizo in on directions they could take it without it starting to look like a 5e clone. Fiddly bits isn't for everyone, but 5e left them no good alternatives.
Greetings!
Sad, but true, Chris! It is such a shame, you know?
I actually met some of these people, years ago. Sean K. Reynolds, the couple that owns Atlas Games, Michelle Lindroos and the Green Ronin people, and several others. It was Gen Con, back in 2003 or 2004. Of course, I always knew that many of them were libertines and at least somewhat on the fringe of things--but they all seemed like intelligent, interesting, and generally cool people.
Fast forward to now and recent years, and all of these people drop their masks, and embrace insanity. I haven't bought a damned thing from any of them in years, and certainly won't now. It's like a slow-motion train wreck, watching them just drive their companies and properties into the sewer.
It makes me wonder also though, don't these people want to be financially successful? Don't they have lawyers or some PR expert or two on staff that meets with them about marketing and corporate strategy on a regular basis--able to tell them, "Hey! SJWism is a fringe group of morons that are rejected by the majority of America--and it is the majority of normal, traditional American gamers that have the most money, and can sustain our business long term. The SJW's are a bunch of broke, whining crybabies that are sucking off of their single mommies, on welfare, or barely hold down a job as a barista at Starbucks."
If I was leading a multi-million dollar corporation, I would honestly avoid catering to the terrible morons entirely, honestly patronize the normal customer base, and enjoy the steady growth and success. This isn't "patronizing" in the bad way, it is like, what? Business Management 101? I was a History major in school, and I think I had one business type class. They all kind of overlap to a certain degree in the basic materials, and even as a non-business major, I learned the basic principles of marketing and business. It is business "common sense" to go after your base market, put effort into creating products and services that they desire, and along the way, don't do anything or say anything that is likely to offend a large portion of them.
Amazing. ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on December 15, 2020, 09:25:32 PM...
Thinking about PF, hearing all of the passionate critiques of it from people that have experience playing the PF system for years, makes me wonder--seeing that most of Paizo staff, along with Green Ronin staff, have been long-time employees of WOTC, and have a considerable pedigree of writing and game development experience--many of them making excellent contributions for 3E previously--how can they seemingly fuck up PF so terribly?...
At the time of Pathfinder 1e Baizuo had no game development experience. They were all writers for an already complete game system.
Baizuo was a Magazine company that came into the RPG industry. Revamped the Dungeon and Dragon magazine line, made it a success and then had it pulled when WOTC decided to go in a different direction with 4e.
PF1 was based on a single employee's house rules. He made the pitch to the Baizuo powers that be when WOTC stuffed up the 4e SRD roll out.
They said Yes.
He found himself the lead designer for the Pathfinder RPG.
Baizuo openly admitted that Pathfinder did not correct any of the fundamental issues with 3.5.
It was just a paste job of house rules over the top of the d20 OGL to sell as their own game.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 15, 2020, 11:36:02 PM
It was just a paste job of house rules over the top of the d20 OGL to sell as their own game.
You just described the whole of the OSR.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 15, 2020, 11:38:32 PM
...
You just described the whole of the OSR.
Only if you are painting with the broadest brush possible.
The difference being that PF1e did not fix any of the underlying issues with 3.5x as a game.
The Pathfinder RPG was literally just 3.5x plus MOAR Classes, and Feats.
For
the Good OSR stuff - the
Core Mechanics of the d20SRD has been used to "build/Create" new d20 based games that are most definitely not the 3.5x rules mastery featapalooza, without getting sued by WOTC.
.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 16, 2020, 12:29:03 AM
Quote from: Shasarak on December 15, 2020, 11:38:32 PM
...
You just described the whole of the OSR.
Only if you are painting with the broadest brush possible.
The difference being that PF1e did not fix any of the underlying issues with 3.5x as a game.
The Pathfinder RPG was literally just 3.5x plus MOAR Classes, and Feats.
For the Good OSR stuff - the Core Mechanics of the d20SRD has been used to "build/Create" new d20 based games that are most definitely not the 3.5x rules mastery featapalooza, without getting sued by WOTC.
.
Ah, if you like it then its different and not derivative at all.
Where is the toast guy with his heart breaker?
Quote from: Jaeger on December 15, 2020, 11:36:02 PM
Quote from: SHARK on December 15, 2020, 09:25:32 PM...
Thinking about PF, hearing all of the passionate critiques of it from people that have experience playing the PF system for years, makes me wonder--seeing that most of Paizo staff, along with Green Ronin staff, have been long-time employees of WOTC, and have a considerable pedigree of writing and game development experience--many of them making excellent contributions for 3E previously--how can they seemingly fuck up PF so terribly?...
At the time of Pathfinder 1e Baizuo had no game development experience. They were all writers for an already complete game system.
Baizuo was a Magazine company that came into the RPG industry. Revamped the Dungeon and Dragon magazine line, made it a success and then had it pulled when WOTC decided to go in a different direction with 4e.
PF1 was based on a single employee's house rules. He made the pitch to the Baizuo powers that be when WOTC stuffed up the 4e SRD roll out.
They said Yes.
He found himself the lead designer for the Pathfinder RPG.
Baizuo openly admitted that Pathfinder did not correct any of the fundamental issues with 3.5.
It was just a paste job of house rules over the top of the d20 OGL to sell as their own game.
Greetings!
Interesting, my friend! I didn't know some of that stuff. The Baizuo just cluster fucked it all from the beginning!
I was a long-time fan of 3E, 3.5E and so on. I loved it, and voiced my opposition towards 4E from the very beginning. However, while I loved 3E, after a number of years and dozens of books and supplements came along, I did recognize that 3E/3.5E certainly did have some significant flaws and problems with the system. Kind of like Rolemaster in that regard, in that the deeper problems with the system do not become immediately apparent, but remain hidden, until more experience is gained with the gazillion classes, feats, skills, features, special rules, and ever-escalating spells and special class powers. In addition, some of those same problems also remain camouflaged for any particular player character or NPC until such a character reaches higher class levels--say, above level 15 or so.
I never got on board with Baizuo because by that time, I was well-versed in the limitations of the 3E system--and as you pointed out, Jaeger, Baizuo made little attempts to actually correct the problems of 3E, instead opting for "MOAR!!!". I laughed, even back then, as I looked at my bookcase *stuffed* with so many books for 3E--I looked at Baizuo and said, "What? WTF?" *Laughing*
Then, of course, word spread continuously about how Baizuo was more and more "woke" and full of SJW BS. I'm glad that I never invested any money into them, for certain.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Shasarak on December 16, 2020, 01:18:33 AM
Ah, if you like it then its different and not derivative at all.
Never said anything about liking the d20 system. At all.
Lots of things are derivative.That does not mean that one cannot make an empirical evaluation of the end result, classifying it hierarchically in relation to its peers based on how the source material is used.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 16, 2020, 01:18:33 AM
Ah, if you like it then its different and not derivative at all.
Where is the toast guy with his heart breaker?
If you rip the engine out of a pickup, bolt a seat to the hood and rig horses to pull it, is it still functioning as a pickup truck or is it now a wagon? If I take the head of an axe and use fire and hammer to reshape it into a knife blade... is it still an axe head?
Is Palladium Fantasy still D&D because it uses a d20 to hit and for saves, other polyhedrals for damage rolls and has hit points?
At a certain point sufficient changes have been made to something such that it is no longer the previous thing and is now something different.
Now, one can argue that changing something to look identical to something that was first created by someone else isn't terribly creative and that something was just a previous iteration of the thing changed that it's still that thing... but that's something you'd have to assess a bit more individually.
"Stars Without Number" for example, uses base mechanics in line with TSR editions of D&D, but it's redirection towards the science fiction genre marks it much more as an original work than as just D&D.
Sometimes it's not even material so much that the writers really don't or want to understand how high level play is supposed to be. Their is an archetype either for Sorcerer or Oracle based on fire and the 20th level ability is either 20 or 30 Damage Resistance. At that level any enemy is going to smash through that DR not unless the DM rolls poorly on the damage dice. Or the Geisha Archetype with a tea ceremony that takes then minutes of real time to use. All great and it offers a decent bonus except how often in a combat does one have ten minute to put aside to the Tea Ceremony.
What turned off many fans beyond their politics was despite their so called "play-testing" too much materialeither seems not get play-tested or even worse they get the feedback telling them to change problematic material and they ignore it. They were told before the gun rules went to print from their playtesters to change them as targeting Touch AC makes them so much better than the other ranged weapons. They told the playtesters they would take their feedback into consideration and ignored completely. With a polite nod and equally polite "too bad so sad suck it up". Their version of the Epic level rules Mythic does not work and requires some work on the DM part. As the players level the Mythic Monsters really don't match the ability of the players.
I am sure they were told that during the same "playtest" and ignored. Only so many times the devs can smile and go "oops we did it again". Made worse that because of the OGL their are other publishers either releasing more PF 1E or even releasing their version of a Pathfinder clone. While actually trying to listen to the fanbase.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 16, 2020, 01:18:33 AM
Ah, if you like it then its different and not derivative at all.
Where is the toast guy with his heart breaker?
Seconded
While also summing up many gamers in the hobby. Their favored edition is not different or derivative at all. Simply because it's a favored edition. Just like Wotc is greedy etc.. yet favored publisher XYZ who does the same thing is above reproach.
Quote from: SHARK on December 15, 2020, 09:25:32 PM
Greetings!
Thinking about PF, hearing all of the passionate critiques of it from people that have experience playing the PF system for years, makes me wonder--seeing that most of Paizo staff, along with Green Ronin staff, have been long-time employees of WOTC, and have a considerable pedigree of writing and game development experience--many of them making excellent contributions for 3E previously--how can they seemingly fuck up PF so terribly?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Because a number of them are overrated hacks anyways.
Monte Cook, for example, believed D&D martial classes were too powerful compared to casters. ::)
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 16, 2020, 08:41:31 AM
Quote from: SHARK on December 15, 2020, 09:25:32 PM
Greetings!
Thinking about PF, hearing all of the passionate critiques of it from people that have experience playing the PF system for years, makes me wonder--seeing that most of Paizo staff, along with Green Ronin staff, have been long-time employees of WOTC, and have a considerable pedigree of writing and game development experience--many of them making excellent contributions for 3E previously--how can they seemingly fuck up PF so terribly?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Because a number of them are overrated hacks anyways.
Monte Cook, for example, believed D&D martial classes were too powerful compared to casters. ::)
Greetings!
*Laughing* "Overrated hacks!" ;D That's true, isn't it?
Martial classes are too powerful compared to spellcasters? *laughing* Geesus. You know, though, that reminds me. In much of Monte Cook's work, you know all of his weird supplements, Monte does seem to have a strong bias in favor of spellcasters. They are like the uber-powerful Gumby, getting all kinds of cool spells and special effects. Martial characters, in contrast, often seem like dressed up hired labor for him. I've noticed that about a good number of NPC's and such in his supplements through the years.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on December 16, 2020, 09:23:13 AM
Greetings!
*Laughing* "Overrated hacks!" ;D That's true, isn't it?
Martial classes are too powerful compared to spellcasters? *laughing* Geesus. You know, though, that reminds me. In much of Monte Cook's work, you know all of his weird supplements, Monte does seem to have a strong bias in favor of spellcasters. They are like the uber-powerful Gumby, getting all kinds of cool spells and special effects. Martial characters, in contrast, often seem like dressed up hired labor for him. I've noticed that about a good number of NPC's and such in his supplements through the years.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
In 2E, the martial versus caster tradeoff was that most martial classes could attract followers easily.
Fighters would gain a henchman fighter of 5th-7th level with some solid gear, 10-40 0-level follower troops, and 10-30 elite soldiers (1st-2nd level). This occurred at 9th level and the fighter did not need to have a stronghold built or held.
Rangers attract 2d6 followers at 10th level (which are random critters and possibly powerful in their own right).
Clerics attract 20-200 0-level fighters (fanatics) but can't replace them (2E clerics really didn't have the gish aspects seen in 3E, so we can kinda forgive this one). This only occurs once the cleric has established a place of worship and advanced to 8th level or better.
Thieves can gain 4d6 random followers, but their loyalty tends to be a bit suspect.
Bards can build a stronghold to attract followers, gaining 10d6 0-level fighters at 9th level.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think 3E was a massive downgrade in overall power for martial classes.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 16, 2020, 09:48:59 AM
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think 3E was a massive downgrade in overall power for martial classes.
That would be because it was. The single biggest culprit was the full-attack mechanics (i.e. can't use it if you take more than a 5' step, each additional attack gets a cumulative -5 penalty to hit... both of which were notably removed from 5e), but the second biggest was definitely the loss of the followers (there was the leadership feat, but it was optional, depended upon Charisma to determine numbers and the number and effectiveness of the followers was a joke with the way threats scaled in 3e). The third culprit would be the change in saving throw math where high level fighters went from having a good chance of evading harmful spell effects to exceedingly vulnerable to effects that required Reflex or Will saves.
Meanwhile casters had many of their restrictions reduced (generic spell component pouches/eschew materials to eliminate the need to track components; concentration checks/defensive casting/5' steps to make it easier to get spells off even when threatened by an adjacent combatant; the math meaning that spells got harder to save against at higher levels instead of easier so "save or dies" that bypass hit points became superior to hit point damage... particularly when hp bloat was factored in).
It was a whole bunch of little things that if one were added to 2e in isolation wouldn't have amounted to much, but in aggregate turned 3e into the "casters & caddies" edition.
To be fair though, a lot of the changes could be good even in aggregate IF they were properly counterbalanced. There's nothing wrong with a magic system that can be safely used at-will in melee (vs. the "wizard as artillery with limited shots" approach of older D&D)... but one would expect in such a system that magic's punch would be more in line with the effectiveness of melee combat rather than retaining the punch of artillery.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 16, 2020, 10:40:47 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 16, 2020, 09:48:59 AM
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think 3E was a massive downgrade in overall power for martial classes.
That would be because it was. The single biggest culprit was the full-attack mechanics (i.e. can't use it if you take more than a 5' step, each additional attack gets a cumulative -5 penalty to hit... both of which were notably removed from 5e), but the second biggest was definitely the loss of the followers (there was the leadership feat, but it was optional, depended upon Charisma to determine numbers and the number and effectiveness of the followers was a joke with the way threats scaled in 3e). The third culprit would be the change in saving throw math where high level fighters went from having a good chance of evading harmful spell effects to exceedingly vulnerable to effects that required Reflex or Will saves.
Meanwhile casters had many of their restrictions reduced (generic spell component pouches/eschew materials to eliminate the need to track components; concentration checks/defensive casting/5' steps to make it easier to get spells off even when threatened by an adjacent combatant; the math meaning that spells got harder to save against at higher levels instead of easier so "save or dies" that bypass hit points became superior to hit point damage... particularly when hp bloat was factored in).
It was a whole bunch of little things that if one were added to 2e in isolation wouldn't have amounted to much, but in aggregate turned 3e into the "casters & caddies" edition.
To be fair though, a lot of the changes could be good even in aggregate IF they were properly counterbalanced. There's nothing wrong with a magic system that can be safely used at-will in melee (vs. the "wizard as artillery with limited shots" approach of older D&D)... but one would expect in such a system that magic's punch would be more in line with the effectiveness of melee combat rather than retaining the punch of artillery.
I thought I remembered the Leadership feat giving a grand total of one follower/henchman, regardless of Charisma.
It's been a while.
Quote from: RandyB on December 16, 2020, 11:48:48 AM
I thought I remembered the Leadership feat giving a grand total of one follower/henchman, regardless of Charisma.
It's been a while.
No, you're correct about the high level henchman (initially earned XP separately can could be up to level-1 to you in 3.0e, but changed to a flat your level-X (max of level-2) based on your leadership score in 3.5e); but it also granted followers who, in 3.0e could only be warriors, experts or commoners or any class in 3.5e and depending on your leadership score could be up to level 6 (though most would be level 1).
It was a real mess and between Cha being a recommended "dump stat" for Fighters while Clerics, Bards, Paladins and Sorcerers needed good scores largely resulted in spellcasting types often having more followers than Fighters who once had "gathers the most followers the most easily" as a defining class feature.
IF the DM actually allowed the Leadership feat that is. 3e's "Back to the Dungeon" mantra meant that the expectation was you'd have just the PCs delving into dungeons (vs. the AD&D approach of having numerous hirelings and henchmen involved in the delves).
Is there any hard evidence, or even medium level evidence, that PF2 isn't selling well?
It's not that I don't believe it. It's that I would like to see some evidence.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 16, 2020, 12:37:57 PM
Quote from: RandyB on December 16, 2020, 11:48:48 AM
I thought I remembered the Leadership feat giving a grand total of one follower/henchman, regardless of Charisma.
It's been a while.
No, you're correct about the high level henchman (initially earned XP separately can could be up to level-1 to you in 3.0e, but changed to a flat your level-X (max of level-2) based on your leadership score in 3.5e); but it also granted followers who, in 3.0e could only be warriors, experts or commoners or any class in 3.5e and depending on your leadership score could be up to level 6 (though most would be level 1).
It was a real mess and between Cha being a recommended "dump stat" for Fighters while Clerics, Bards, Paladins and Sorcerers needed good scores largely resulted in spellcasting types often having more followers than Fighters who once had "gathers the most followers the most easily" as a defining class feature.
IF the DM actually allowed the Leadership feat that is. 3e's "Back to the Dungeon" mantra meant that the expectation was you'd have just the PCs delving into dungeons (vs. the AD&D approach of having numerous hirelings and henchmen involved in the delves).
Yes. The Dragonlance-esque "adventuring party joined at the hip". That trend started with Dragonlance, but was not officially embedded in the rules until 3e.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 16, 2020, 08:32:31 AM
Quote from: Shasarak on December 16, 2020, 01:18:33 AM
Ah, if you like it then its different and not derivative at all.
Where is the toast guy with his heart breaker?
If you rip the engine out of a pickup, bolt a seat to the hood and rig horses to pull it, is it still functioning as a pickup truck or is it now a wagon? If I take the head of an axe and use fire and hammer to reshape it into a knife blade... is it still an axe head?
Is Palladium Fantasy still D&D because it uses a d20 to hit and for saves, other polyhedrals for damage rolls and has hit points?
At a certain point sufficient changes have been made to something such that it is no longer the previous thing and is now something different.
Now, one can argue that changing something to look identical to something that was first created by someone else isn't terribly creative and that something was just a previous iteration of the thing changed that it's still that thing... but that's something you'd have to assess a bit more individually.
"Stars Without Number" for example, uses base mechanics in line with TSR editions of D&D, but it's redirection towards the science fiction genre marks it much more as an original work than as just D&D.
Since when has Palladium Fantasy been considered to be OSR?
Where exactly are you trying to move those goal posts?
Quote from: RandyB on December 16, 2020, 02:09:06 PM
Yes. The Dragonlance-esque "adventuring party joined at the hip". That trend started with Dragonlance, but was not officially embedded in the rules until 3e.
True, the "Never split the Party" meme only started with 3e and was never a thing before that.
Quote from: Mistwell on December 16, 2020, 02:01:29 PM
Is there any hard evidence, or even medium level evidence, that PF2 isn't selling well?
It's not that I don't believe it. It's that I would like to see some evidence.
Not selling well in relation to what?
No one here has inside access to Baizuo financials, or their original sales projections for PF2.
As to 'Evidence'...
'Evidence' = Proof to whatever standard you feel satisfied with?
Or
'Evidence' = according to the dictionary definition of the word?
Just trying to firmly nail down your goalposts here.
The hardest evidence I've seen (which is by no means great) was the last Roll20 figures released that showed it was still being played less then Pathfinder.
Quote from: RandyB on December 16, 2020, 02:09:06 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 16, 2020, 12:37:57 PM
Quote from: RandyB on December 16, 2020, 11:48:48 AM
I thought I remembered the Leadership feat giving a grand total of one follower/henchman, regardless of Charisma.
It's been a while.
No, you're correct about the high level henchman (initially earned XP separately can could be up to level-1 to you in 3.0e, but changed to a flat your level-X (max of level-2) based on your leadership score in 3.5e); but it also granted followers who, in 3.0e could only be warriors, experts or commoners or any class in 3.5e and depending on your leadership score could be up to level 6 (though most would be level 1).
It was a real mess and between Cha being a recommended "dump stat" for Fighters while Clerics, Bards, Paladins and Sorcerers needed good scores largely resulted in spellcasting types often having more followers than Fighters who once had "gathers the most followers the most easily" as a defining class feature.
IF the DM actually allowed the Leadership feat that is. 3e's "Back to the Dungeon" mantra meant that the expectation was you'd have just the PCs delving into dungeons (vs. the AD&D approach of having numerous hirelings and henchmen involved in the delves).
Yes. The Dragonlance-esque "adventuring party joined at the hip". That trend started with Dragonlance, but was not officially embedded in the rules until 3e.
We always played 2e as adventuring parties and never used followers. We dumped Charisma all the time. It was a joke.
There's no question 3E made the balance worse between casters and martials. But it wasn't really all that great at high levels in 2e either. One of the key differences was that 3E really sped up advancement. You were getting to to those high levels a lot more quickly. And then when you add in prestige classes - which you could only get at mid levels, then it creates an incentive to actually begin there.
One of the other things was that the simulationist side of 3E really screwed a lot with martial characters. There were so many things that the rogue couldn't sneak attack for example. This made a lot of sense but rogues didn't exactly have other options.
3E is actually quite a good system played up to around level 8 with largely human or humanoid opponents.
Quote from: TJS on December 16, 2020, 04:14:32 PM
We always played 2e as adventuring parties and never used followers. We dumped Charisma all the time. It was a joke.
There's no question 3E made the balance worse between casters and martials. But it wasn't really all that great at high levels in 2e either. One of the key differences was that 3E really sped up advancement. You were getting to to those high levels a lot more quickly. And then when you add in prestige classes - which you could only get at mid levels, then it creates an incentive to actually begin there.
One of the other things was that the simulationist side of 3E really screwed a lot with martial characters. There were so many things that the rogue couldn't sneak attack for example. This made a lot of sense but rogues didn't exactly have other options.
3E is actually quite a good system played up to around level 8 with largely human or humanoid opponents.
One of the things I told my group before we abandoned 3E entirely was that if we ever do it again, there is going to be exactly one house rule: You can only take a major or moderate caster class every other level. Because the only way I'm going to run the game with 12th level characters that are wizards, clerics, druids, etc. is if they are no more than 6/6 wizard/rogue or fighter/cleric or whatever mix you want to play. We didn't have a campaign that we wanted to play using 3E that way into the higher levels. So it became a moot point.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 16, 2020, 02:55:50 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on December 16, 2020, 02:01:29 PM
Is there any hard evidence, or even medium level evidence, that PF2 isn't selling well?
It's not that I don't believe it. It's that I would like to see some evidence.
Not selling well in relation to what?
No one here has inside access to Baizuo financials, or their original sales projections for PF2.
As to 'Evidence'...
'Evidence' = Proof to whatever standard you feel satisfied with?
Or
'Evidence' = according to the dictionary definition of the word?
Just trying to firmly nail down your goalposts here.
I don't really have goal posts. It's not really an argument. I'd just like to see something more concrete if it exists. Not really a dictionary definition of evidence, just more in line with whatever standard I'd be satisfied with, which would be things like "PF2 sales are rapidly decreasing on Amazon's sales list" or "PF2 games are being played less on Roll20 of FG" or Paizo is laying people off" or "Paizo employee X let slip that things are grim around there" or "Paizo is having to pivot to a different forcus away from PF2" or things like that. Sort of things which are similar to those we've heard when game companies are seeing problems with a major line of products, or worse.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 16, 2020, 02:49:06 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 16, 2020, 08:32:31 AM
Quote from: Shasarak on December 16, 2020, 01:18:33 AM
Ah, if you like it then its different and not derivative at all.
Where is the toast guy with his heart breaker?
If you rip the engine out of a pickup, bolt a seat to the hood and rig horses to pull it, is it still functioning as a pickup truck or is it now a wagon? If I take the head of an axe and use fire and hammer to reshape it into a knife blade... is it still an axe head?
Is Palladium Fantasy still D&D because it uses a d20 to hit and for saves, other polyhedrals for damage rolls and has hit points?
At a certain point sufficient changes have been made to something such that it is no longer the previous thing and is now something different.
Now, one can argue that changing something to look identical to something that was first created by someone else isn't terribly creative and that something was just a previous iteration of the thing changed that it's still that thing... but that's something you'd have to assess a bit more individually.
"Stars Without Number" for example, uses base mechanics in line with TSR editions of D&D, but it's redirection towards the science fiction genre marks it much more as an original work than as just D&D.
Since when has Palladium Fantasy been considered to be OSR?
Where exactly are you trying to move those goal posts?
What goalposts? You act as if I started this discussion.
My point about Palladium Books is that it shares many similarities with D&D; owing largely to it starting from Kevin's own D&D house rules if my understanding is correct; but at a certain point those changes added to the game were sufficient that it could no longer rightly be called D&D. It became its own thing.
As this relates to the OSR. SOME parts of it (ex. Stars Without Number) have made sufficient changes to the base that they can't just be called a "rip-off" of D&D as you seem to wish to insinuate that all parts of the OSR are.
Personally, I think using the combo of 3eSRD and OGL to create a carbon copy of a previous edition of D&D (particularly when charging for it) to be a bit dubious; particularly efforts launched AFTER the original games became easily re-available (thus I also make allowances for those who underwent the effort of doing so PRIOR to that re-availability... particularly when their efforts were non-profit endeavors; those were people who wanted to share a game system they loved that was no longer easy to find in print, not those seeking to profit off other people's works).
That said, there is also no real set line where something stops being a copy with the OGL as a legal cover and when any changes added to it are sufficient to make it its own thing... but, as with Palladium Books not being just a house-ruled D&D, you'll know it when you see it.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 15, 2020, 10:45:15 AM
So expressing a preference for certain mechanics over others is "edition warring"? Interesting take. So I guess saying that mechanically 1e>5e>3e>4e is a downright jihad...
Most gamers know at this point that Pathfinder 1E or at least the core is a rehash of 3.5 D&D. It's just that some in the hobby insist on wanting to make PF1E out to be a completly different rpg when it's not imo. The core at least is 3.5. flaws and all with some house rules. I might say "hopefully we can play D&D tonight" followed by some Pathfinder purist who will "it's not D&D it's Pathfinder" or something similar. I had to leave one PF campaign because the DM and group could not stop shitting on D&D or Wotc. Let the same person who said the above as they awlays and I mean always had to draw a line in the sand between both rpgs even when asked then told not to do so many times.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 16, 2020, 09:48:59 AM
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think 3E was a massive downgrade in overall power for martial classes.
I wonder if many PF players sometimes either played earlier editions or just tend to forgot that earlier editions had followers as well. As some of them have fits when it comes to Leadership. Your supposed to have followers in name only and not use them for anything. So I have to give up a precious feat slot so that all the npcs I receive are just going to sit around playing with spoons. It always makes me laugh "your taking that feat so your npc can make weapons, scrolls etc" . Me: yeaahh why would I take the feat if it's not going to benefit me somehow. Yet Wizards and other full level casters are not an issue. What gets me is when told how many classes used to have access to followers in earlier editions you can see their heads explode. Ranger followers can be pretty powerful I don't have a book yet I think one was a Satyr another Nymph. Yet their are complaining about NPC XYZ cranking out items.
Quote from: sureshot on December 16, 2020, 05:30:56 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 15, 2020, 10:45:15 AM
So expressing a preference for certain mechanics over others is "edition warring"? Interesting take. So I guess saying that mechanically 1e>5e>3e>4e is a downright jihad...
Most gamers know at this point that Pathfinder 1E or at least the core is a rehash of 3.5 D&D. It's just that some in the hobby insist on wanting to make PF1E out to be a completly different rpg when it's not imo. The core at least is 3.5. flaws and all with some house rules. I might say "hopefully we can play D&D tonight" followed by some Pathfinder purist who will "it's not D&D it's Pathfinder" or something similar. I had to leave one PF campaign because the DM and group could not stop shitting on D&D or Wotc. Let the same person who said the above as they awlays and I mean always had to draw a line in the sand between both rpgs even when asked then told not to do so many times.
Yeah the distinction is somewhat arbritrary - although not completely meaningless. By late Pathfinder you have a lot of classes that never existed in 3.5 and you have an emphasis on character customisation via archetypes rather then prestige classes, and nailing down one or the other tells players which version of the SRD to look at for spells and feats.
Ironically if you want to play 3.5 on Roll20 you are much better of using the Pathfinder character sheet as it's much better designed.
Quote from: Mistwell on December 16, 2020, 04:43:45 PM
...I don't really have goal posts. ... Not really a dictionary definition of evidence, just more in line with whatever standard I'd be satisfied with,...
Moveable goalposts, and words meaning whatever you want them to mean to fit your narrative...
At least you're upfront about framing your questions in bad faith. I'll give you that.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 16, 2020, 04:45:47 PM
What goalposts? You act as if I started this discussion.
Well, Pathfinder and OSR are literally DnD rules and Palladium Fantasy is literally not-DnD rules.
So yeah Palladium is different.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 16, 2020, 08:19:39 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 16, 2020, 04:45:47 PM
What goalposts? You act as if I started this discussion.
Well, Pathfinder and OSR are literally DnD rules and Palladium Fantasy is literally not-DnD rules.
So yeah Palladium is different.
The point you seem to deliberately miss is that not all OSR is the same. Again I refer you to Stars Without Number as an OSR game that is NOT D&D.
At a certain point the changes made to a chassis are sufficient that it is no longer in the same category (example: the horse drawn pickup frame is clearly now a wagon and not a truck).
Palladium started out as D&D house-rules; just because it diverged 40 years ago doesn't change that. There is no hard and fast line, but some of the OSR has sufficient changes to them that they aren't 'just' D&D clones.
I'm not sure you can say a game that came out in the early 80s as an OSR game considering it is just plain Old School.
Quote from: sureshot on December 16, 2020, 05:30:56 PM
I wonder if many PF players sometimes either played earlier editions or just tend to forgot that earlier editions had followers as well. As some of them have fits when it comes to Leadership. Your supposed to have followers in name only and not use them for anything. So I have to give up a precious feat slot so that all the npcs I receive are just going to sit around playing with spoons. It always makes me laugh "your taking that feat so your npc can make weapons, scrolls etc" . Me: yeaahh why would I take the feat if it's not going to benefit me somehow. Yet Wizards and other full level casters are not an issue. What gets me is when told how many classes used to have access to followers in earlier editions you can see their heads explode. Ranger followers can be pretty powerful I don't have a book yet I think one was a Satyr another Nymph. Yet their are complaining about NPC XYZ cranking out items.
Looking back through old 1E and 2E books, the ranger could have a copper dragon or storm giant as a follower (1E), or treants and werebears (2E). Also, I would note that having a fae follower could be parlayed into getting an introduction to the local dryad, nymph or other fae ruler in the area -- a little smarts and good roleplay here could be quite useful. "Yes, Tinsel, please tell the Forest Queen I'll be happy to accept her invitation. I'll bring flowers."
I would like to note that several game devs, both WotC and Paizo, have admitted there were feats in the books that had minimal to no purpose and were deliberately left in to screw with people.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 16, 2020, 11:09:01 PM
I would like to note that several game devs, both WotC and Paizo, have admitted there were feats in the books that had minimal to no purpose and were deliberately left in to screw with people.
If you're referring to the Monte Cook essay what he actually said was that many feats were circumstantially useful and that they didn't tell the players what the circumstances were but left them to figure them out.
The example he gave was Toughness which a good feat to have if you were playing a one shot as a 1st level wizard but a bad choice for a long term campaign. The example was probably not the best one, since a good case could be made that Toughness was flat out badly designed, but that was not the point he was making. The reading of that article was extremely uncharitable.
Mastery as a motivation is not on its face entirely a bad thing. As Cook said this was one thing people enjoyed about playing Magic, and the pleasure of mastery is one of the big things that motivates people - especially when playing games - but when you couple this with a complex system it can have unfortunate repercussions for the more casual player.
It's also amusing that this fed into so much 3e/4E edition war as this kind of design is at the heart of 4e as well. 4e was more forgiving of different levels of mastery but it was still very much there.
I lost much respect for Monte Cooke when he went on that semi-rant in the PF 1E intro where for one thing who taught having one of the guys who worked on the product shill the product in the intro was a good thing. Second from what I can see in that intro he hated what Wotc did with 4E might as well throw stones to make sure it sells less. If I ever do a review I will either leave that part out remove one point. It did sour me on reading the rest of the book. It amounts to Pathfinder is good because of monte cooke reasons and feels.
Quote from: TJS on December 16, 2020, 11:47:12 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 16, 2020, 11:09:01 PM
I would like to note that several game devs, both WotC and Paizo, have admitted there were feats in the books that had minimal to no purpose and were deliberately left in to screw with people.
If you're referring to the Monte Cook essay what he actually said was that many feats were circumstantially useful and that they didn't tell the players what the circumstances were but left them to figure them out.
The example he gave was Toughness which a good feat to have if you were playing a one shot as a 1st level wizard but a bad choice for a long term campaign. The example was probably not the best one, since a good case could be made that Toughness was flat out badly designed, but that was not the point he was making. The reading of that article was extremely uncharitable.
Mastery as a motivation is not on its face entirely a bad thing. As Cook said this was one thing people enjoyed about playing Magic, and the pleasure of mastery is one of the big things that motivates people - especially when playing games - but when you couple this with a complex system it can have unfortunate repercussions for the more casual player.
It's also amusing that this fed into so much 3e/4E edition war as this kind of design is at the heart of 4e as well. 4e was more forgiving of different levels of mastery but it was still very much there.
I think you are missing the point of the objections to this design principle. People weren't angry because 3e included feats and options that only had niche applications. They were upset because the designers purposely include options that had
few, if any, applications for the express purpose of rewarding careful planning (in the building of your character) and punishing players who did not build with such optimization in mind. Because of the mechanics of 3e, you quickly became either excellent or incompetent in any skill/test/challenge as the bonuses to skills skyrocketed. By mid-tier, you could have specialists with +10 to +20 on specific skills. This meant that anyone who did not narrow their focus to target what they wanted to be really good at would quickly find they couldn't do anything of note in the party, just because of the math. Jack-of-all-trades was really hard to do in 3e, and required just as much system mastery as specialist.
So people were angry because they could pick a feat that seemed to do something, find out it was so niche as to be worthless, and then find their character lost their utility in the group. Remember, this is a group game. Very few people have the makeup to be happy when everyone around them can do what they want to do better than they can. The combination of bonus inflation and feat trees made such an outcome very likely, unless you spent a lot of time planning your character's build. And then your options were to beg the DM for a respec, trash the character, or play eternal catchup, sometimes with a character that had taken months to get where it was. The problem wasn't that some feats were "circumstantially useful"; the problem was that too many were like Toughness and not well designed at all. And Monte seemed to be justifying that through a particularly snide caveat emptor.
P.S. And Pathfinder doubled down on this approach. The several years I spent playing PFS, I probably spent more time planning characters than I did playing them. There's something wrong with rolling a skill check that is effectively your bonus, plus a d20, rather than a d20 plus your bonus...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 17, 2020, 09:01:50 AM
P.S. And Pathfinder doubled down on this approach. The several years I spent playing PFS, I probably spent more time planning characters than I did playing them. There's something wrong with rolling a skill check that is effectively your bonus, plus a d20, rather than a d20 plus your bonus...
Thats more to do with the swingy nature of the d20. I for one hate the 5e feeling that my skill bonuses are near pointless in terms of variance. I don't feel like a specialist at all, even if I specialize as much as I can.
While people dump on 3e for allot of its deserved reasons, there are other reasons why it continues to recieve play. Though I find it (and most of D&D) have been surpassed in quality by adaptations.
Stars Without Number has feats for instance, but they are all great. And skills, but uses a 2d6 system.
Yes, there is a difference in kind here, not just degree. Specifically, these things are different in kind:
A. We, the authors, had certain themes in mind or a feel or a certain aspect of the game itself wasn't important to us. So we didn't spend a lot of time on the other stuff, neither design time nor checking the math nor even much play testing. We expected GMs to adapt that stuff themselves or ignore it.
B. We, the authors, knew that we had screwed up certain elements that we were working on but we needed a widget to check off a box. So rather than fix it or exercise some editorial judgment we made up reasons after the fact for why a key aspect of the design that we screwed up was actually a feature not a bug.
The first one may make you not care much for the game if you want the things the authors didn't want to spend time on, but you can still respect whatever they did do on its own merits and according to how well it meets the design goals the authors did care about. I don't know about anyone else, but the second causes this reaction from me: "Very well. If it is all that much trouble to try to do a good job with whatever you goals are, I'll take you at your word that you don't know how to produce anything useful to me."
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 17, 2020, 09:17:19 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 17, 2020, 09:01:50 AM
P.S. And Pathfinder doubled down on this approach. The several years I spent playing PFS, I probably spent more time planning characters than I did playing them. There's something wrong with rolling a skill check that is effectively your bonus, plus a d20, rather than a d20 plus your bonus...
Thats more to do with the swingy nature of the d20. I for one hate the 5e feeling that my skill bonuses are near pointless in terms of variance. I don't feel like a specialist at all, even if I specialize as much as I can.
While people dump on 3e for allot of its deserved reasons, there are other reasons why it continues to recieve play. Though I find it (and most of D&D) have been surpassed in quality by adaptations.
Stars Without Number has feats for instance, but they are all great. And skills, but uses a 2d6 system.
See, that's why I think the argument can be made that SWN is a different "game" (a difference in kind and not degree, as one poster put it so elegantly above). When 3e has me rolling 27 + 1d20, I've reached the point where my skill overwhelms the randomness (and I've become an expert who hardly ever fails). But it also means that, to challenge me, the DC of the check needs to be 35+. My companions, who might have +10, are now noobs with a 75% chance of failure, even though they may have made some investments to get to that +10.
SWN, with each bonus having more impact on the chance of success, gives that level of expertise without crippling the folks that have a little skill, because +6 to 2d6 is dramatic, while +2 is still more than a standard deviation at the margins. So There is a fundamentally different relationship between the mechanics and the play, with a different feel. So I think the argument that both OSR and PF are the same, as iterations of D&D, falls flat (not that you made that argument, but I find your comment helpful in illustrating that).
Edit: Oh, and I agree with your criticism of 5e. I have a 14th level monk with a passive perception of 20 (+10 to Perception). He should see everything, pretty much. But anytime we roll, I have a 45% chance of scoring less than my passive score, which means that I have a reasonable (25%) chance of not even scoring above 15. So my expertise, which I have spent proficiencies and ability scores on, can be defeated frequently by the roll of the dice.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 16, 2020, 08:19:39 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 16, 2020, 04:45:47 PM
What goalposts? You act as if I started this discussion.
Well, Pathfinder and OSR are literally DnD rules and Palladium Fantasy is literally not-DnD rules.
So yeah Palladium is different.
The DNA is there. 3-18 base stats is a dead giveaway. D20 rolls for combat and saves. Hit Points.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out Palladium started out as a set of houserules for D&D 1st edition.
There's plenty of differences, but a lot of similairies. It's much closer to D&D than the D6 system, or Shadowrun, or Interlock.
To use a rather vulgar metaphor, Baizuo are being spit-roasted by 5e from one side and the OSR from another.
Really Pathfinder exists only because of the 4th Edition launch fiasco. People forget, but 4th Edition's launch was handled very poorly. There was a similar disdain for the core group of consumers and chasing of a phantom audience as today. WotC were convinced they were going to get a great, new audience of MMORPG gamers and weren't afraid of telling their core audience they were obsolete.
I am reminded of one particular promotional flash animation for 4th edition where people unhappy with the game were quite literally portrayed as trolls and then had a dragon shit half-digested adventurers all over them.
The weird, board-gamey mechanics and abandonment of formula by 4th ed created combined with the aforementioned hostility towards their core audience led to a mass player exodus. The problem with Pathfinder is that it didn't do anything to fix the biggest issues with 3.5. Instead it just leaned into them and declared them features. Pathfinder was marketed as "3.75" and that much is true, Pathfinder is 3.5 on steroids. Where 3.5 was a top-heavy, bloated mess of poorly designed systems, Pathfinder is worse. Paizo were great at management and marketing, but they really weren't very good game designers and that's coming back to bite them.
Once 5e came out, it really showed the inadequacies of Baizou's design strategy. 5e manages to accomplish everything Pathfinder set out to do and does it better.
Also the "Old School" crowd are increasingly abandoning Pathfinder as they seek to go back to the very basics of DnD meaning the Basic/Expert set or Advanced DnD or find better ways to build on the 3.0 formula.
Paizo have really painted themselves into a corner. PF 2e was their hail mary pass to get out and it's failed.
Baizuo is not long for this world. They're likely going to coast for a while on their in-house IPs and licensing but we'll see how much longer that lasts.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 16, 2020, 08:00:18 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on December 16, 2020, 04:43:45 PM
...I don't really have goal posts. ... Not really a dictionary definition of evidence, just more in line with whatever standard I'd be satisfied with,...
Moveable goalposts, and words meaning whatever you want them to mean to fit your narrative...
At least you're upfront about framing your questions in bad faith. I'll give you that.
Dude, I was given two options, and I repeated back one of the choices. You presented "Are you X or Y" and I said "I am Y" and you're upset I chose one of the two options you gave me? You seem to think this is some heated debate where someone is trying to "win" a point or something. I really don't have a goal. There is no narrative (and if you think I have some bias or narrative or place I am coming from on this, I'd love to hear what you think it is).
I am asking if someone has something more which would satisfy my curiosity, but we already all agree on the premise. We both agree PF2 isn't doing as well as they expected, and I am just curious if there is something more to back that up. If the answers are "no we have nothing more" I am satisfied with that answer and it doesn't mean I "won" some argument because I am not having an argument and I have no position if there is some debate about it.
I think you took this whole thing wrong. Or I presented it wrong? I sure tried to make it clear I was not coming at it from a position or argument.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 17, 2020, 12:33:57 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on December 16, 2020, 08:19:39 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 16, 2020, 04:45:47 PM
What goalposts? You act as if I started this discussion.
Well, Pathfinder and OSR are literally DnD rules and Palladium Fantasy is literally not-DnD rules.
So yeah Palladium is different.
The DNA is there. 3-18 base stats is a dead giveaway. D20 rolls for combat and saves. Hit Points.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out Palladium started out as a set of houserules for D&D 1st edition.
There's plenty of differences, but a lot of similairies. It's much closer to D&D than the D6 system, or Shadowrun, or Interlock.
It DID actually start out as Kevin's House Rules (Palladium Fantasy 1e even had AD&D's one minute combat rounds), but that was back in the early 1e days where hacking a system in rather major ways was just part of the hobby and by 1981 his house-rules had evolved well past the point that they could be marketed and sold as their own thing.
Another important point to remember about that time was there was no OGL license back then. If you wanted to sell your own game you HAD to actually make it distinctly enough its own IP to not have TSR lawyers coming after you for it.
Which is why, in addition to the mechanical differences, Palladium also includes some rather specific changes to terminology for things that were shared; ex. Attributes instead of Ability Scores, Strike roll instead of 'to-hit roll' or 'attack roll', Hit Points and H.P. instead of hit points, A.R. (which ascended) instead of AC, using 1D6 instead of 1d6, and of course the names of the attributes (which otherwise mapped right to D&D's base six, plus comeliness and a speed attribute).
If Kevin had been just starting out c. 2000 with the OGL available, Palladium Fantasy might have looked more like Spycraft 1e or Mutants & Masterminds 1/2e... a system with a lot of changes, but still mostly using shared nomenclature from D&D instead of having all the names of things changed for the sake of increasing the perceived differences.
I say "MIGHT" though because at the time Kevin also made a big point of NOT jumping on the d20 System bandwagon and even included "the first multi-genre d20 system" as part of his marketing c. 2000 as the notion of using the same system for games across genres (which Ryan Dancy was pushing for the d20 System) was done by Palladium twenty years earlier with Mechanoids (1981), Palladium Fantasy (1983), Heroes Unlimited (1984), TMNT (1985), Robotech (1986), Beyond the Supernatural (1987), Ninjas & Superspies (1988) and culminating with Rifts (1990) all using the same engine with just minor modifications.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 17, 2020, 09:01:50 AM
Quote from: TJS on December 16, 2020, 11:47:12 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 16, 2020, 11:09:01 PM
I would like to note that several game devs, both WotC and Paizo, have admitted there were feats in the books that had minimal to no purpose and were deliberately left in to screw with people.
If you're referring to the Monte Cook essay what he actually said was that many feats were circumstantially useful and that they didn't tell the players what the circumstances were but left them to figure them out.
The example he gave was Toughness which a good feat to have if you were playing a one shot as a 1st level wizard but a bad choice for a long term campaign. The example was probably not the best one, since a good case could be made that Toughness was flat out badly designed, but that was not the point he was making. The reading of that article was extremely uncharitable.
Mastery as a motivation is not on its face entirely a bad thing. As Cook said this was one thing people enjoyed about playing Magic, and the pleasure of mastery is one of the big things that motivates people - especially when playing games - but when you couple this with a complex system it can have unfortunate repercussions for the more casual player.
It's also amusing that this fed into so much 3e/4E edition war as this kind of design is at the heart of 4e as well. 4e was more forgiving of different levels of mastery but it was still very much there.
I think you are missing the point of the objections to this design principle. People weren't angry because 3e included feats and options that only had niche applications. They were upset because the designers purposely include options that had few, if any, applications for the express purpose of rewarding careful planning (in the building of your character) and punishing players who did not build with such optimization in mind. Because of the mechanics of 3e, you quickly became either excellent or incompetent in any skill/test/challenge as the bonuses to skills skyrocketed. By mid-tier, you could have specialists with +10 to +20 on specific skills. This meant that anyone who did not narrow their focus to target what they wanted to be really good at would quickly find they couldn't do anything of note in the party, just because of the math. Jack-of-all-trades was really hard to do in 3e, and required just as much system mastery as specialist.
So people were angry because they could pick a feat that seemed to do something, find out it was so niche as to be worthless, and then find their character lost their utility in the group. Remember, this is a group game. Very few people have the makeup to be happy when everyone around them can do what they want to do better than they can. The combination of bonus inflation and feat trees made such an outcome very likely, unless you spent a lot of time planning your character's build. And then your options were to beg the DM for a respec, trash the character, or play eternal catchup, sometimes with a character that had taken months to get where it was. The problem wasn't that some feats were "circumstantially useful"; the problem was that too many were like Toughness and not well designed at all. And Monte seemed to be justifying that through a particularly snide caveat emptor.
P.S. And Pathfinder doubled down on this approach. The several years I spent playing PFS, I probably spent more time planning characters than I did playing them. There's something wrong with rolling a skill check that is effectively your bonus, plus a d20, rather than a d20 plus your bonus...
I wasn't saying anything about why people disliked it. I was correcting a false representation of the article.
And you're making another one. "Justifying it"? The whole point of the article was reflecting on how he felt that whole approach had been a mistake!
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on December 17, 2020, 09:19:44 AM
Yes, there is a difference in kind here, not just degree. Specifically, these things are different in kind:
A. We, the authors, had certain themes in mind or a feel or a certain aspect of the game itself wasn't important to us. So we didn't spend a lot of time on the other stuff, neither design time nor checking the math nor even much play testing. We expected GMs to adapt that stuff themselves or ignore it.
B. We, the authors, knew that we had screwed up certain elements that we were working on but we needed a widget to check off a box. So rather than fix it or exercise some editorial judgment we made up reasons after the fact for why a key aspect of the design that we screwed up was actually a feature not a bug.
The first one may make you not care much for the game if you want the things the authors didn't want to spend time on, but you can still respect whatever they did do on its own merits and according to how well it meets the design goals the authors did care about. I don't know about anyone else, but the second causes this reaction from me: "Very well. If it is all that much trouble to try to do a good job with whatever you goals are, I'll take you at your word that you don't know how to produce anything useful to me."
Again this makes no sense as a reading of the ivory tower article. The whole point of the article was not to justify what they did then but to justify why they were going to do things differently in 'Next'.
It's just that nerds typically can't follow a basic argument and then everyone just believes the bullshit summaries they read on forums and so don't read the original article with any care.
People fixate to much on the fact that he used 'Toughness' as an example. He was trying to say that 'look even this has situational usage'. I suspect, however, that overall, it was weaker then they meant it to be generally. The idea that they deliberately made it weak was nowhere stated and is an extremely uncharitable inference.
Probably a more typical example of ivory tower design were the frost cheese feats in 4E.
This was a trick that consisted of taking two feats:
QuoteWintertouched
EDIT
SHARE
Wintertouched is a heroic tier feat available to all player characters.
When a character with the Wintertouched feat uses a cold keyword power, that character gains combat advantage for that attack against creatures vulnerable to cold.[PH:201]
Wintertouched is an essential part of the frostcheese strategy. Creatures hit by a cold keyword power from a character with the Lasting Frost feat become vulnerable to cold, setting them up for Wintertouched's combat advantage.
QuoteLasting Frost is a paragon tier feat available to characters level 11 or above.
Once per turn, when a character with the Lasting Frost feat hits a target with a cold power, the first target hit gains vulnerable cold 5 after the power resolves. The vulnerability lasts until the end of the character's next turn.[PH:203][U :3/2010]
The March 2010 update limited Lasting Frost to applying to only the first target hit by a cold power per turn, and clarified its timing.
Lasting Frost is an essential part of the frostcheese strategy. Creatures made vulnerable to cold by Lasting Frost grant combat advantage to characters with the Wintertouched feat using cold keyword powers.
The first feat Wintertouched is pretty weak all up if you don't also take Lasting Frost. It's almost certainly a sub-optimal choice. This is not pointed out to you however. You need the system mastery to see that these two feats are best used together. Another element of system mastery is knowing that this combination is far superior on a character like a ranger that has multi-attacks, and probably not the best choice for a character with one big massive attack such as a Barbarian. And of course you also need to find some way of reliably doing cold damage (not too hard with 4E's wishlists of magical items).
This was the basic design principle Cook was reflecting upon (and criticising!) - not that they deliberately put in trap options to screw over players.
Quote from: Torque2100 on December 17, 2020, 01:20:08 PM
To use a rather vulgar metaphor, Baizuo are being spit-roasted by 5e from one side and the OSR from another.
Really Pathfinder exists only because of the 4th Edition launch fiasco. People forget, but 4th Edition's launch was handled very poorly. There was a similar disdain for the core group of consumers and chasing of a phantom audience as today. WotC were convinced they were going to get a great, new audience of MMORPG gamers and weren't afraid of telling their core audience they were obsolete.
I am reminded of one particular promotional flash animation for 4th edition where people unhappy with the game were quite literally portrayed as trolls and then had a dragon shit half-digested adventurers all over them.
The weird, board-gamey mechanics and abandonment of formula by 4th ed created combined with the aforementioned hostility towards their core audience led to a mass player exodus. The problem with Pathfinder is that it didn't do anything to fix the biggest issues with 3.5. Instead it just leaned into them and declared them features. Pathfinder was marketed as "3.75" and that much is true, Pathfinder is 3.5 on steroids. Where 3.5 was a top-heavy, bloated mess of poorly designed systems, Pathfinder is worse. Paizo were great at management and marketing, but they really weren't very good game designers and that's coming back to bite them.
Once 5e came out, it really showed the inadequacies of Baizou's design strategy. 5e manages to accomplish everything Pathfinder set out to do and does it better.
Also the "Old School" crowd are increasingly abandoning Pathfinder as they seek to go back to the very basics of DnD meaning the Basic/Expert set or Advanced DnD or find better ways to build on the 3.0 formula.
Paizo have really painted themselves into a corner. PF 2e was their hail mary pass to get out and it's failed.
Baizuo is not long for this world. They're likely going to coast for a while on their in-house IPs and licensing but we'll see how much longer that lasts.
One of the big problems I remember with 4E was that there were going to be all these digital tools, which... never materialized. Oops.
Combine that with 4E's jarring mechanical shift that made it look more like a tabletop version of WoW...
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 17, 2020, 09:39:39 PM
Quote from: Torque2100 on December 17, 2020, 01:20:08 PM
To use a rather vulgar metaphor, Baizuo are being spit-roasted by 5e from one side and the OSR from another.
Really Pathfinder exists only because of the 4th Edition launch fiasco. People forget, but 4th Edition's launch was handled very poorly. There was a similar disdain for the core group of consumers and chasing of a phantom audience as today. WotC were convinced they were going to get a great, new audience of MMORPG gamers and weren't afraid of telling their core audience they were obsolete.
I am reminded of one particular promotional flash animation for 4th edition where people unhappy with the game were quite literally portrayed as trolls and then had a dragon shit half-digested adventurers all over them.
The weird, board-gamey mechanics and abandonment of formula by 4th ed created combined with the aforementioned hostility towards their core audience led to a mass player exodus. The problem with Pathfinder is that it didn't do anything to fix the biggest issues with 3.5. Instead it just leaned into them and declared them features. Pathfinder was marketed as "3.75" and that much is true, Pathfinder is 3.5 on steroids. Where 3.5 was a top-heavy, bloated mess of poorly designed systems, Pathfinder is worse. Paizo were great at management and marketing, but they really weren't very good game designers and that's coming back to bite them.
Once 5e came out, it really showed the inadequacies of Baizou's design strategy. 5e manages to accomplish everything Pathfinder set out to do and does it better.
Also the "Old School" crowd are increasingly abandoning Pathfinder as they seek to go back to the very basics of DnD meaning the Basic/Expert set or Advanced DnD or find better ways to build on the 3.0 formula.
Paizo have really painted themselves into a corner. PF 2e was their hail mary pass to get out and it's failed.
Baizuo is not long for this world. They're likely going to coast for a while on their in-house IPs and licensing but we'll see how much longer that lasts.
One of the big problems I remember with 4E was that there were going to be all these digital tools, which... never materialized. Oops.
Because the lone developer thereof died suddenly - and all his work was encrypted and thus could not be carried forward by anyone else.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 17, 2020, 09:39:39 PM
Combine that with 4E's jarring mechanical shift that made it look more like a tabletop version of WoW...
Intentional outreach to the massive WoW fanbase on the part of WotC. Had the digital tools been completed and available at launch....
Quote from: RandyB on December 17, 2020, 09:50:41 PM
Because the lone developer thereof died suddenly - and all his work was encrypted and thus could not be carried forward by anyone else.
Intentional outreach to the massive WoW fanbase on the part of WotC. Had the digital tools been completed and available at launch....
So (A) they tried to target a new demographic, without doing some extra work to maintain the old base and (B) were so inept that they set a critical component up with a single point of failure and compounded this by having their single point of failure (one programmer) create another single point of failure (the encryption) inside the first point ???
Just between you and me that looks like a failed INT check by most of the marketing team (A) and a fumbled INT check by the development team (B)
...and I thought Paizo had bad project management.
Quote from: RandyB on December 17, 2020, 09:50:41 PM
Because the lone developer thereof died suddenly - and all his work was encrypted and thus could not be carried forward by anyone else.
If that's the case, then WotC is run by a pack of phenomenally
stupid fucking morons.
On what planet do you put the software tool production, for your flagship product, in one guy's hands without someone else being able to get into it? Who does that? WotC wasn't a goddamn garage business; were they THAT shorthanded?
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 18, 2020, 12:03:13 AM
Quote from: RandyB on December 17, 2020, 09:50:41 PM
Because the lone developer thereof died suddenly - and all his work was encrypted and thus could not be carried forward by anyone else.
If that's the case, then WotC is run by a pack of phenomenally stupid fucking morons.
On what planet do you put the software tool production, for your flagship product, in one guy's hands without someone else being able to get into it? Who does that? WotC wasn't a goddamn garage business; were they THAT shorthanded?
I have some vague recollection that him encrypting it was related to the murder suicide. And then of course when your boss murders his wife and then kills himself on a small team like that, you tend to get the employees going "nope, we're done now."
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 18, 2020, 12:03:13 AM
If that's the case, then WotC is run by a pack of phenomenally stupid fucking morons.
On what planet do you put the software tool production, for your flagship product, in one guy's hands without someone else being able to get into it? Who does that? WotC wasn't a goddamn garage business; were they THAT shorthanded?
As Mistwell points out... it wasn't some accident, it was deliberate sabotage. The project was being handled by an entire software developm team. One night the head of the project went into the system, encrypted all the files with a personal passcode, murdered his wife and then killed himself.
This also didn't happen until the project was years into development, so not something WotC would have foreseen when the team was hired. It also happened just months before launch. Everything looked fine until it wasn't and they still managed to scramble out a last minute character builder from scratch and get the monster builder software within months of launch.
That's not someone you can blame WotC for. If the project hadn't been lost to sabotage, 4E would have launched with a character builder, monster builder, "character visualizer" and a 3d virtual tabletop (that used the visualized characters) on a subscription model which was their real plan for getting to the $50 million in sales target (and had a much better shot at... 500,000 people at $8/mo. gets you there).
I'm having a difficult time envisioning a development environment where the only copy of the source code is in the source code repository subject to such an encryption ploy. Sure, it might be the most recent copy because all the other developers had (incorrectly) not pulled a copy in the last week or two, at the outside. Or we are back to the idea that they hired a development "company" with one real developer?
Sure, that's a nasty setback (on multiple levels, not all business). However, WotC has a string of such "managed to pick the wrong company to help" setbacks in tech. At some point, if you can't ever get it right, it calls into question your judgment on picking your help.
As for the relative incompetence of the PF folks and the D&D folks, it's kind of like arguing over the difference between getting yourself stomp by the bull or gored by the bull instead of talking about maybe not getting hurt by the bull.
I keep hearing that story about the collapse of DnD 4th edition.
I would love to watch a documentary about the disastrous launch of 4th edition and how it imploded including the murder suicide and the sabotage of the online tools. Sounds like it was quite the clusterfuck backstage.
Quote from: moonsweeper on December 17, 2020, 11:55:20 PM
Quote from: RandyB on December 17, 2020, 09:50:41 PM
Because the lone developer thereof died suddenly - and all his work was encrypted and thus could not be carried forward by anyone else.
Intentional outreach to the massive WoW fanbase on the part of WotC. Had the digital tools been completed and available at launch....
So (A) they tried to target a new demographic, without doing some extra work to maintain the old base and (B) were so inept that they set a critical component up with a single point of failure and compounded this by having their single point of failure (one programmer) create another single point of failure (the encryption) inside the first point ???
Just between you and me that looks like a failed INT check by most of the marketing team (A) and a fumbled INT check by the development team (B)
...and I thought Paizo had bad project management.
As I heard it, the encryption was the programmer's choice, not WotC's. But they allowed it, by ignorance or inaction. I'd guess ignorance.Better info upthread.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on December 18, 2020, 08:45:44 AM
Sure, that's a nasty setback (on multiple levels, not all business). However, WotC has a string of such "managed to pick the wrong company to help" setbacks in tech. At some point, if you can't ever get it right, it calls into question your judgment on picking your help.
Based on hearing similar development hell stories for software and websites across industries I think it's less a question of judgment and more a question of general competence within the small studio programming development industry.
There's a reason the term "vaporware" exists.
In fact when you go even deeper into rumors about the developer, it's also been suggested the guy hit the breaking point because he wasn't going to be able to meet WotC's deadline and the "unbreakable encryption" was either his way of hiding that it was mostly vaporware or that the rest of the team blamed the lack of a nearly finished product on the guy who was no longer alive to say otherwise.
The saddest part is that's not even the most convoluted story of software development I've heard; though the murder/suicide definitely makes it the most dramatic.
Similar cases with RPGs on Kickstarter turning out to be vaporware are why I'm making sure my writing is finished on my own system before I go to Kickstarter for art/editing/production funding and will have a draft copy of the manuscript as the lowest tier pledge reward just to prove it's not vaporware being pledged on.
Quote from: RandyB on December 18, 2020, 10:35:25 AM
Quote from: moonsweeper on December 17, 2020, 11:55:20 PM
Quote from: RandyB on December 17, 2020, 09:50:41 PM
Because the lone developer thereof died suddenly - and all his work was encrypted and thus could not be carried forward by anyone else.
Intentional outreach to the massive WoW fanbase on the part of WotC. Had the digital tools been completed and available at launch....
So (A) they tried to target a new demographic, without doing some extra work to maintain the old base and (B) were so inept that they set a critical component up with a single point of failure and compounded this by having their single point of failure (one programmer) create another single point of failure (the encryption) inside the first point ???
Just between you and me that looks like a failed INT check by most of the marketing team (A) and a fumbled INT check by the development team (B)
...and I thought Paizo had bad project management.
As I heard it, the encryption was the programmer's choice, not WotC's. But they allowed it, by ignorance or inaction. I'd guess ignorance.
Better info upthread.
Doesn't matter, still complete and utter incompetence. The company is doing a complete overhaul of one of its flagship products and doesn't have a basic backup system in place...
This is why you have downloaded copies in a few locations as you go, at worst you lose a week or less of work...
Quote from: moonsweeper on December 18, 2020, 12:52:02 PM
Doesn't matter, still complete and utter incompetence. The company is doing a complete overhaul of one of its flagship products and doesn't have a basic backup system in place...
This is why you have downloaded copies in a few locations as you go, at worst you lose a week or less of work...
Backups only help to recover from accidents. They don't help at all against deliberate sabotage.
The project lead would know where all the backups were. If he wanted them gone, he could easily overwrite them all with corrupted data and make sure any prior revision backups were corrupted too.
WotC hired a company to design a series of programs for their digital rollout; programs that can easily take a year (particularly the 3d interactive tabletop). Then a month or so before the launch the project lead in that hired company snaps, destroys all the programs and backups... then MURDERS his wife and kills himself.
But that's WotC's fault in your world?
A hires B. B fails to deliver. How much is A's fault? Who can say?
A hires C. C also fails to deliver. Ditto.
A hires D - G with similar results.
A hires H. H is apparently so small that other developers do not have copies of the source code on their work stations/laptops (for some bizarre reason). I don't know, maybe it was a really bad design with all the real business logic written in database procedures. Who can say from the outside? H does the sabotage/murder/suicide thing.
The sabotage/murder/suicide thing is not A's fault. The track record of failing to hire anyone that can deliver is A's fault. H is just the most spectacular, recent example of the problem. Now, A did manage to, finally, do better the next time. So maybe they do learn, eventually, slowly. Still wouldn't bet a plug nickel on any tech firm they hired (e.g. WotC hired you to do tech would be a negative on your resume for tech).
Edit, TL,DR: At some point, the fact that you've got, this time, what for other people would be a good excuse for failure, doesn't change the fact that you've somehow managed to consistently fail.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 18, 2020, 01:07:30 PM
Quote from: moonsweeper on December 18, 2020, 12:52:02 PM
Doesn't matter, still complete and utter incompetence. The company is doing a complete overhaul of one of its flagship products and doesn't have a basic backup system in place...
This is why you have downloaded copies in a few locations as you go, at worst you lose a week or less of work...
Backups only help to recover from accidents. They don't help at all against deliberate sabotage.
The project lead would know where all the backups were. If he wanted them gone, he could easily overwrite them all with corrupted data and make sure any prior revision backups were corrupted too.
WotC hired a company to design a series of programs for their digital rollout; programs that can easily take a year (particularly the 3d interactive tabletop). Then a month or so before the launch the project lead in that hired company snaps, destroys all the programs and backups... then MURDERS his wife and kills himself.
But that's WotC's fault in your world?
wrong
The
program manager in charge of 4e may be able to do that if no one is paying attention...but your software developer, nope.
In order for it not to be WOTC's fault they would have had to have various updates delivered that they could fall back on...if they let a solo developer go without delivering updates on a regular basis it is a failure on their part.
Your timeline only proves my point.
The monday morning nerd quarterbacking in this thread is hysterical.
I'm guessing none of you have seen the viral ragequit PF2E vid posted on youtube in recent days (and the dozen(s?) response videos), otherwise the thread would have veered back on topic to trashing that system and it's development and design team.
/intermission
Quote from: JeffB on December 18, 2020, 03:14:54 PM
The monday morning nerd quarterbacking in this thread is hysterical.
I'm guessing none of you have seen the viral ragequit PF2E vid posted on youtube in recent days (and the dozen(s?) response videos), otherwise the thread would have veered back on topic to trashing that system and it's development and design team.
/intermission
You mean the taking 20 video? The comment section on that is gold.
Quote from: Slambo on December 18, 2020, 03:16:16 PM
Quote from: JeffB on December 18, 2020, 03:14:54 PM
The monday morning nerd quarterbacking in this thread is hysterical.
I'm guessing none of you have seen the viral ragequit PF2E vid posted on youtube in recent days (and the dozen(s?) response videos), otherwise the thread would have veered back on topic to trashing that system and it's development and design team.
/intermission
You mean the taking 20 video? The comment section on that is gold.
That's the one. I saw in my yootoob feed that guy from taking 20 was soliciting a vote on whether to post his video rebuttal to all those slamming him and his players.
The thread on the Paizo PF2 forums makes my brain hurt.
Quote from: JeffB on December 18, 2020, 03:19:04 PM
Quote from: Slambo on December 18, 2020, 03:16:16 PM
Quote from: JeffB on December 18, 2020, 03:14:54 PM
The monday morning nerd quarterbacking in this thread is hysterical.
I'm guessing none of you have seen the viral ragequit PF2E vid posted on youtube in recent days (and the dozen(s?) response videos), otherwise the thread would have veered back on topic to trashing that system and it's development and design team.
/intermission
You mean the taking 20 video? The comment section on that is gold.
That's the one. I saw in my yootoob feed that guy from taking 20 was soliciting a vote on whether to post his video rebuttal to all those slamming him and his players.
The thread on the Paizo PF2 forums makes my brain hurt.
I bet, i saw a ton of comments basically telling him he cant have a negative opinion on PF vause he has a youtube channel and people might not try it if he does. A few mentioned the game is hurting for players, but im not sure if theyre reliable for the purpose of this thread.
Quote from: JeffB on December 18, 2020, 03:14:54 PM
The monday morning nerd quarterbacking in this thread is hysterical.
I'm guessing none of you have seen the viral ragequit PF2E vid posted on youtube in recent days (and the dozen(s?) response videos), otherwise the thread would have veered back on topic to trashing that system and it's development and design team.
/intermission
I just watched his video and to be honest I dont really understand what his point was.
He complains that a player chooses to memorise say Fireball and then complains that their character casts Fireball over and over again.
All I can say is, Dude you have played DnD before, right?
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on December 18, 2020, 01:16:51 PM
Edit, TL,DR: At some point, the fact that you've got, this time, what for other people would be a good excuse for failure, doesn't change the fact that you've somehow managed to consistently fail.
Do you work in the programming field by chance?
Because my experience of interacting with software/website developers is that 95% of them have a level of "programming" that amounts to modifying some existing platform by swapping out the art (or filling default positions to place art) then adjusting a few settings on a behind the scenes interface that someone with actual talent built in order to "customize" it.
Anyone with real talent gets snagged up by the megacorp companies who charge through the nose for development. And even EA's teams more often than not deliver virtually unplayable buggy messes at launch that only get fixed after the fact if its profitable enough in spite of all the flaws to divert some of the profits into doing so.
If you have a solid IT and/or programming guy or team you're happy with for your work; pay them like kings because they are by far the exception and not the rule in the industry.
Your anecdotal evidence may vary.
Quote from: moonsweeper on December 18, 2020, 01:32:34 PM
wrong
The program manager in charge of 4e may be able to do that if no one is paying attention...but your software developer, nope.
In order for it not to be WOTC's fault they would have had to have various updates delivered that they could fall back on...if they let a solo developer go without delivering updates on a regular basis it is a failure on their part.
Your timeline only proves my point.
You are aware this was going to be a subscription (i.e. user billing information is involved) server-based system (basically a turn-based MMO), right? You understand that WotC/Hasbro doesn't actually own any game platform servers or do ANY in house software development? That they pay hosting services and outside developers for all that stuff; people who ostensibly know what they're doing.
So go grab the launcher for some defunct MMO and try and play the game. I'll wait. The 4E project manager (who writes BOOKS for a living) can have all the client-side updates to show progress that he wants, if the software developer blew up/corrupted/encrypted (same effective difference) the server-side programming and its backups then the client-side program delivered to the 4E team is about as useful as a dead MMO launcher program.
That said, they WERE able, in a matter of that month, to cobble together a functional character builder and a monster builder (two parts NOT directly reliant on the server-based virtual tabletop) in time for launch. So it seems like the primary part lost due to malice was the server-side software portions of what was intended to be an integrated system (if you're familiar with City of Heroes, after it was shuttered, some people were able to cobble together the client-side data to re-create the character builder as an offline program, though you couldn't load into anywhere to play them).
From what I've read of the matter for 4E its basically the same thing; after the encryption/murder/suicide only the tools that resided client-side could be rebuilt in time for launch... and by the time they could start to maybe start over on the server-side features things were going so badly they just scrubbed the whole project.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 18, 2020, 03:37:01 PM
You are aware this was going to be a subscription (i.e. user billing information is involved) server-based system (basically a turn-based MMO), right? You understand that WotC/Hasbro doesn't actually own any game platform servers or do ANY in house software development? That they pay hosting services and outside developers for all that stuff; people who ostensibly know what they're doing.
So go grab the launcher for some defunct MMO and try and play the game. I'll wait. The 4E project manager (who writes BOOKS for a living) can have all the client-side updates to show progress that he wants, if the software developer blew up/corrupted/encrypted (same effective difference) the server-side programming and its backups then the client-side program delivered to the 4E team is about as useful as a dead MMO launcher program.
AS far as I am aware the 4e character creation program that WotC did eventually release can be downloaded to your computer. Not that I would promote anyone doing such a thing illegally.
But lets be fair, your game should stand on its own merits without relying on 3rd party support tools.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 18, 2020, 03:37:01 PM
Do you work in the programming field by chance?
Because my experience of interacting with software/website developers is that 95% of them have a level of "programming" that amounts to modifying some existing platform by swapping out the art (or filling default positions to place art) then adjusting a few settings on a behind the scenes interface that someone with actual talent built in order to "customize" it.
Anyone with real talent gets snagged up by the megacorp companies who charge through the nose for development. And even EA's teams more often than not deliver virtually unplayable buggy messes at launch that only get fixed after the fact if its profitable enough in spite of all the flaws to divert some of the profits into doing so.
If you have a solid IT and/or programming guy or team you're happy with for your work; pay them like kings because they are by far the exception and not the rule in the industry.
Your anecdotal evidence may vary.
I do work in the field, and I have evidence that is a bit more than anecdotal (though I've got plenty of that, too). I had an almost 10-year stretch where one could justifiably say that my entire salary was paid by providing working code to people that had hired the kind of types you mentioned. It's happened off an on at other times during my professional career, too, which is considerably longer than that decade (3x and counting). I've worked tiny and megacorp and things in between, supporting different client industries.
The big things I've learned about that particular issue, though, are:
A. There are a lot of solid, non-spectacular, developers out there. You wouldn't want them to freelance your solution, but given the proper team and management, they can do some good work. Most organizations bigger than about 3 people can't afford to tolerate no performance for long. Substandard but still contributing can run a long time, especially in a bureaucracy with some others pulling the weight, but even then there are limits.
B. It is not rare at all for a client organization to make a bad choice when hiring tech. It is
extremely rare for a client organization to repeatedly make the same bad choice more than 2 or 3 times.
Note that certain fields are notorious for deviating from what I said above, though. Game development is notorious for drinking the blood out of developers that turn into superstars (what doesn't kill you makes you stronger) or whither away. Banking development is known for being so cut and dried and lacking in all skill enhancing opportunities that it will eat your soul if you stay with it too long. (It used to be a good route in a bad economy. Work 2 years in a banking software development job to get experience on your resume, then move on and never go back.) But I've only got indirect exposure to those, so maybe that is exaggerated.
Tying this back to the main topic, I'll just say again that WotC's ineptness in contracting with tech is not in any way normal. Yes, ineptness is normal, but not to that extreme degree. It would be analogous to a kid touching a hot stove. That happens all the time. It is a normal part of the human experience. WotC is the equivalent of the kid that has to touch the hot stove 5 or 6 times before saying, "Hey, I just realized that touching the hot stove is maybe not the best plan! Not sure exactly why. Maybe I'm doing it wrong. But it is clearly not working for me the way I'm doing it now."
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on December 18, 2020, 04:21:01 PM
Tying this back to the main topic, I'll just say again that WotC's ineptness in contracting with tech is not in any way normal. Yes, ineptness is normal, but not to that extreme degree. It would be analogous to a kid touching a hot stove. That happens all the time. It is a normal part of the human experience. WotC is the equivalent of the kid that has to touch the hot stove 5 or 6 times before saying, "Hey, I just realized that touching the hot stove is maybe not the best plan! Not sure exactly why. Maybe I'm doing it wrong. But it is clearly not working for me the way I'm doing it now."
For TSR/WotC I wonder if part of there issue was just leadership churn leading to a lot of people repeating the same mistakes because, just like coding, a lot of business documentation is crap.
One of my newer clients recently bought out their company from the previous owner and found themselves struggling just to make it run because the owner never actually wrote any of his procedures down so it was basically a building, tools and a stock of parts then customers starting calling in orders and they had to basically reinvent the wheel to fulfill them.
There was a while there where D&D seemed to be going through heads the way the USSR went through Premiers in the 80's. It just makes me wonder how much was the same people making bad decisions again and again... and how much was new people making the same bad decision because no one bothered to leave behind a proper guidebook.
The video's description of Pathfinder 2 reminds me a lot of my experience of playing 4e.
By the way. I'm assuming this is the video:
There really needs to be an AI that takes youtube bloviating down to less then 100 words.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 18, 2020, 03:33:53 PM
Quote from: JeffB on December 18, 2020, 03:14:54 PM
The monday morning nerd quarterbacking in this thread is hysterical.
I'm guessing none of you have seen the viral ragequit PF2E vid posted on youtube in recent days (and the dozen(s?) response videos), otherwise the thread would have veered back on topic to trashing that system and it's development and design team.
/intermission
I just watched his video and to be honest I dont really understand what his point was.
He complains that a player chooses to memorise say Fireball and then complains that their character casts Fireball over and over again.
All I can say is, Dude you have played DnD before, right?
Shock and surprise! Shasarak can't follow a criticism of PF? Who would have thought it was possible!?!
Let me help. His video is complaining that, by focusing on character builds, the game becomes reduced to players using the same set of actions over-and-over, because the mechanics have made anything other than that small subset of actions inefficient to the point of being substandard. He's not talking about spells. He's talking about the consequence of feat-based character builds, where not having a feat means you are terrible at something and having the feat means that it would be a waste of your turn to do something else. 5e has this somewhat (if you play with feats), too, but not to the same extent as a game whose bonuses scale to a larger extent. It's a feature of feat-type systems, and I don't think its a solvable problem within that context.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 18, 2020, 05:04:40 PMLet me help. His video is complaining that, by focusing on character builds, the game becomes reduced to players using the same set of actions over-and-over, because the mechanics have made anything other than that small subset of actions inefficient to the point of being substandard. He's not talking about spells. He's talking about the consequence of feat-based character builds, where not having a feat means you are terrible at something and having the feat means that it would be a waste of your turn to do something else. 5e has this somewhat (if you play with feats), too, but not to the same extent as a game whose bonuses scale to a larger extent. It's a feature of feat-type systems, and I don't think its a solvable problem within that context.
Can't this criticism be applied to any system ever where characters are distinguished in any way whatsoever?
Otherwise being a 20 year lawyer is the same as being a 30 year navy seal.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 18, 2020, 05:04:40 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on December 18, 2020, 03:33:53 PM
Quote from: JeffB on December 18, 2020, 03:14:54 PM
The monday morning nerd quarterbacking in this thread is hysterical.
I'm guessing none of you have seen the viral ragequit PF2E vid posted on youtube in recent days (and the dozen(s?) response videos), otherwise the thread would have veered back on topic to trashing that system and it's development and design team.
/intermission
I just watched his video and to be honest I dont really understand what his point was.
He complains that a player chooses to memorise say Fireball and then complains that their character casts Fireball over and over again.
All I can say is, Dude you have played DnD before, right?
Shock and surprise! Shasarak can't follow a criticism of PF? Who would have thought it was possible!?!
Let me help. His video is complaining that, by focusing on character builds, the game becomes reduced to players using the same set of actions over-and-over, because the mechanics have made anything other than that small subset of actions inefficient to the point of being substandard. He's not talking about spells. He's talking about the consequence of feat-based character builds, where not having a feat means you are terrible at something and having the feat means that it would be a waste of your turn to do something else. 5e has this somewhat (if you play with feats), too, but not to the same extent as a game whose bonuses scale to a larger extent. It's a feature of feat-type systems, and I don't think its a solvable problem within that context.
Yeah what a fucking idiot. You choose feats that let you do things better, you do those better things because that is what you wanted to do and then you complain because you always do the things that you wanted your character to do.
Fucking Genius!
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 18, 2020, 05:24:49 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 18, 2020, 05:04:40 PMLet me help. His video is complaining that, by focusing on character builds, the game becomes reduced to players using the same set of actions over-and-over, because the mechanics have made anything other than that small subset of actions inefficient to the point of being substandard. He's not talking about spells. He's talking about the consequence of feat-based character builds, where not having a feat means you are terrible at something and having the feat means that it would be a waste of your turn to do something else. 5e has this somewhat (if you play with feats), too, but not to the same extent as a game whose bonuses scale to a larger extent. It's a feature of feat-type systems, and I don't think its a solvable problem within that context.
Can't this criticism be applied to any system ever where characters are distinguished in any way whatsoever?
Otherwise being a 20 year lawyer is the same as being a 30 year navy seal.
It's a problem that rpgs keep running into for various design reasons. In many ways 3.5 was the apogee of this especially with it's prestige classes - that's a lot of the caster/martial thing. You could build a Fighter to specialise in Spiked Chains and even take a special prestige class - or you could play a wizard that could totally change what his thing was every day. So if you knew you were likely to fight giants the wizard could prepare lots of spells that targetted Will saves and avoid those that targetted Fort and the Spiked Chain Fighter could sit in his corner and cry.
Of course, part of the above is what happens when theoretical optimisation crashes into reality - just don't make a Fighter that specialises in tripping people just because someone posted a build on the internet (actually by late Pathfinder 1 you had enought feats that you could build to have several tricks you could switch between - but this tends to get lost because optimisation is so focused on maximum theoretical efficiency).
The other option is circumstantial choice - a list of things are situationally useful that you can choose between so that you can effectively respond to different situations. This makes the game more tactically complex and would seem to fit the aims of a rpg better - you're making strategic choices so you don't have conflict between choosing widgets for character growth reasons or optimisation (however, these
can synergise)- presumably it's totally in character for your Fighter to try and choose the most tactically appropriate option in the moment. However, there's reasons this isn't done very often. It greatly increases the cognitive mode and level of mastery needed - and this narrows the audience. If you've build a character that has only one or two things to do then it's relatively easy to play, but if you have a long list of possible approaches then the game can slow to a crawl (which it often did in 4E which really wasn't
that tactically complex)
One of the big mistakes a lot of games do is they allow players to build to make the game less fun by removing some of the tacticaly complexity built in from the start.
Take Archery for example. Archery is difficult to make interesting - you stand and you ping away. Two things games often do are 1) put some kind of penalty for shooting into melee, and 2) put restrictions on shooting when in melee. Both these things offer some tactical choice - the first means you need to consider targetting - is it better to focus fire with a penalty or aim for an unengaged target? How do I position myself so that i don't become engaged in melee (or have a backup plan for when I do). However, the first thing that many games do is offer feats or widgets to take away those restrictions. This has two problems - it makes archery boring again and if makes these feats compulsory as archery has to then be balanced around the assumption that everyone will take them (so if you don't take them your archer will feel inneffective.)
This is the illusion of choice - it's also adding complexity to a game, for the sole reason of allowing the players to remove it and has the byproduct of making anyone who doesn't specialise in archery suck at it more then they should.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 18, 2020, 05:04:40 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on December 18, 2020, 03:33:53 PM
Quote from: JeffB on December 18, 2020, 03:14:54 PM
The monday morning nerd quarterbacking in this thread is hysterical.
I'm guessing none of you have seen the viral ragequit PF2E vid posted on youtube in recent days (and the dozen(s?) response videos), otherwise the thread would have veered back on topic to trashing that system and it's development and design team.
/intermission
I just watched his video and to be honest I dont really understand what his point was.
He complains that a player chooses to memorise say Fireball and then complains that their character casts Fireball over and over again.
All I can say is, Dude you have played DnD before, right?
Let me help. His video is complaining that, by focusing on character builds, the game becomes reduced to players using the same set of actions over-and-over, because the mechanics have made anything other than that small subset of actions inefficient to the point of being substandard. He's not talking about spells.
That is the gist of it. In the new 3 action economy, he's also talking about some spells as they too fall into the same trap. There is an illusion of choice in how many magic missles you can cast each round (1,2,or 3) because it's never better to cast less than 3- iow, sounds great on paper, in play not so much.
And then his argument is: if you have two systems that essentially have the same issue- one complicated and crunchy (PF2) and another less fiddly and faster/easier to run, then why bother with the crunchy game?
But I also think his problem is he has been running one of the APs for the past year. IME, APs are a poor way to run a game anyway unless you want to play out a movie script (which is truly an "illusion of choice" problem in gaming) , and to top it off the general conclusion is that Paizo did a subpar job on the first one they released because it was being written and whatnot as final development was being done (like Tyranny of Dragons, and 5E).
I get what he is saying, but this is an issue with any RPG that is designed heavily around combat mechanics (which is any version of WOTC D&D, and PF , for sure).
Quote from: Slambo on December 18, 2020, 03:22:41 PM
Quote from: JeffB on December 18, 2020, 03:19:04 PM
Quote from: Slambo on December 18, 2020, 03:16:16 PM
Quote from: JeffB on December 18, 2020, 03:14:54 PM
The monday morning nerd quarterbacking in this thread is hysterical.
I'm guessing none of you have seen the viral ragequit PF2E vid posted on youtube in recent days (and the dozen(s?) response videos), otherwise the thread would have veered back on topic to trashing that system and it's development and design team.
/intermission
You mean the taking 20 video? The comment section on that is gold.
That's the one. I saw in my yootoob feed that guy from taking 20 was soliciting a vote on whether to post his video rebuttal to all those slamming him and his players.
The thread on the Paizo PF2 forums makes my brain hurt.
I bet, i saw a ton of comments basically telling him he cant have a negative opinion on PF vause he has a youtube channel and people might not try it if he does. A few mentioned the game is hurting for players, but im not sure if theyre reliable for the purpose of this thread.
Yeah, those were funny. I mean, the guy has a quarter million subscribers and is apparently a big influencer on yootoob, so it has the potential to hurt, but still- he cannot have an opinion and post it? ::)
Quote from: JeffB on December 18, 2020, 06:16:28 PM
That is the gist of it. In the new 3 action economy, he's also talking about some spells as they too fall into the same trap. There is an illusion of choice in how many magic missles you can cast each round (1,2,or 3) because it's never better to cast less than 3- iow, sounds great on paper, in play not so much.
If you run a white room game where the Wizard can just stand there uninterrupted and use all of his actions casting the 3 action version then yeah of course that is the only way that you would ever cast magic missile.
I never see that in an actual real game but sure on paper I would agree 100%.
QuoteAnd then his argument is: if you have two systems that essentially have the same issue- one complicated and crunchy (PF2) and another less fiddly and faster/easier to run, then why bother with the crunchy game?
But I also think his problem is he has been running one of the APs for the past year. IME, APs are a poor way to run a game anyway unless you want to play out a movie script (which is truly an "illusion of choice" problem in gaming) , and to top it off the general conclusion is that Paizo did a subpar job on the first one they released because it was being written and whatnot as final development was being done (like Tyranny of Dragons, and 5E).
I get what he is saying, but this is an issue with any RPG that is designed heavily around combat mechanics (which is any version of WOTC D&D, and PF , for sure).
I am working through the Age of Ashes campaign and even though aspects of it are a flaming bag of dog poop on your front porch, the combat aspect has been extremely variable. Especially the critical hit rules can change up the combat very quickly.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 18, 2020, 07:55:54 PM
I am working through the Age of Ashes campaign and even though aspects of it are a flaming bag of dog poop on your front porch, the combat aspect has been extremely variable. Especially the critical hit rules can change up the combat very quickly.
What level are the players at? I ask because he says fairly early on that this did not become apparent until they had gotten to higher levels in the year plus campaign.
Quote from: lordmalachdrim on December 18, 2020, 08:40:29 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on December 18, 2020, 07:55:54 PM
I am working through the Age of Ashes campaign and even though aspects of it are a flaming bag of dog poop on your front porch, the combat aspect has been extremely variable. Especially the critical hit rules can change up the combat very quickly.
What level are the players at? I ask because he says fairly early on that this did not become apparent until they had gotten to higher levels in the year plus campaign.
We are on book 4 which is level 12 almost leveling up to level 13 (if they can beat the last boss monster to rescue the captured Dwarves.)
In the last fight, the Fighter took almost 300 hp damage and was kept on his feet only with the help of the Druid and Wizard.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 18, 2020, 05:24:49 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 18, 2020, 05:04:40 PMLet me help. His video is complaining that, by focusing on character builds, the game becomes reduced to players using the same set of actions over-and-over, because the mechanics have made anything other than that small subset of actions inefficient to the point of being substandard. He's not talking about spells. He's talking about the consequence of feat-based character builds, where not having a feat means you are terrible at something and having the feat means that it would be a waste of your turn to do something else. 5e has this somewhat (if you play with feats), too, but not to the same extent as a game whose bonuses scale to a larger extent. It's a feature of feat-type systems, and I don't think its a solvable problem within that context.
Can't this criticism be applied to any system ever where characters are distinguished in any way whatsoever?
Otherwise being a 20 year lawyer is the same as being a 30 year navy seal.
Uh, no?
First, im pretty sure most of us play RPGs to
escape the constraints of the real world, not replay them. And secondly, I'm pretty sure that a navy seal doesn't approach every situation by repeating the exact same moves every time. A terrorist? Shove prone, shield bash, attack with advantage. Another? Shove prone, shield bash, attack with advantage. A terrorist in a wheelchair! Shove pr... Oh no, I'm defeated!
Not every system is built so that you are an expert in a handful of things and a noob at everything else. It is a common design problem in RPGs, but not every one suffers it to the same extent. If you abstract enough, a shark is a camel, because they both are living creatures. That doesn't make a shark a camel...
Quote from: Shasarak on December 18, 2020, 05:37:53 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 18, 2020, 05:04:40 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on December 18, 2020, 03:33:53 PM
Quote from: JeffB on December 18, 2020, 03:14:54 PM
The monday morning nerd quarterbacking in this thread is hysterical.
I'm guessing none of you have seen the viral ragequit PF2E vid posted on youtube in recent days (and the dozen(s?) response videos), otherwise the thread would have veered back on topic to trashing that system and it's development and design team.
/intermission
I just watched his video and to be honest I dont really understand what his point was.
He complains that a player chooses to memorise say Fireball and then complains that their character casts Fireball over and over again.
All I can say is, Dude you have played DnD before, right?
Shock and surprise! Shasarak can't follow a criticism of PF? Who would have thought it was possible!?!
Let me help. His video is complaining that, by focusing on character builds, the game becomes reduced to players using the same set of actions over-and-over, because the mechanics have made anything other than that small subset of actions inefficient to the point of being substandard. He's not talking about spells. He's talking about the consequence of feat-based character builds, where not having a feat means you are terrible at something and having the feat means that it would be a waste of your turn to do something else. 5e has this somewhat (if you play with feats), too, but not to the same extent as a game whose bonuses scale to a larger extent. It's a feature of feat-type systems, and I don't think its a solvable problem within that context.
Yeah what a fucking idiot. You choose feats that let you do things better, you do those better things because that is what you wanted to do and then you complain because you always do the things that you wanted your character to do.
Fucking Genius!
Yeah, because we all want to play Assembly-Line: The RPG. How dare he want variety in gameplay!
Quote from: TJS on December 18, 2020, 05:48:03 PM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 18, 2020, 05:24:49 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 18, 2020, 05:04:40 PMLet me help. His video is complaining that, by focusing on character builds, the game becomes reduced to players using the same set of actions over-and-over, because the mechanics have made anything other than that small subset of actions inefficient to the point of being substandard. He's not talking about spells. He's talking about the consequence of feat-based character builds, where not having a feat means you are terrible at something and having the feat means that it would be a waste of your turn to do something else. 5e has this somewhat (if you play with feats), too, but not to the same extent as a game whose bonuses scale to a larger extent. It's a feature of feat-type systems, and I don't think its a solvable problem within that context.
Can't this criticism be applied to any system ever where characters are distinguished in any way whatsoever?
Otherwise being a 20 year lawyer is the same as being a 30 year navy seal.
It's a problem that rpgs keep running into for various design reasons. In many ways 3.5 was the apogee of this especially with it's prestige classes - that's a lot of the caster/martial thing. You could build a Fighter to specialise in Spiked Chains and even take a special prestige class - or you could play a wizard that could totally change what his thing was every day. So if you knew you were likely to fight giants the wizard could prepare lots of spells that targetted Will saves and avoid those that targetted Fort and the Spiked Chain Fighter could sit in his corner and cry.
Of course, part of the above is what happens when theoretical optimisation crashes into reality - just don't make a Fighter that specialises in tripping people just because someone posted a build on the internet (actually by late Pathfinder 1 you had enought feats that you could build to have several tricks you could switch between - but this tends to get lost because optimisation is so focused on maximum theoretical efficiency).
The other option is circumstantial choice - a list of things are situationally useful that you can choose between so that you can effectively respond to different situations. This makes the game more tactically complex and would seem to fit the aims of a rpg better - you're making strategic choices so you don't have conflict between choosing widgets for character growth reasons or optimisation (however, these can synergise)- presumably it's totally in character for your Fighter to try and choose the most tactically appropriate option in the moment. However, there's reasons this isn't done very often. It greatly increases the cognitive mode and level of mastery needed - and this narrows the audience. If you've build a character that has only one or two things to do then it's relatively easy to play, but if you have a long list of possible approaches then the game can slow to a crawl (which it often did in 4E which really wasn't that tactically complex)
One of the big mistakes a lot of games do is they allow players to build to make the game less fun by removing some of the tacticaly complexity built in from the start.
Take Archery for example. Archery is difficult to make interesting - you stand and you ping away. Two things games often do are 1) put some kind of penalty for shooting into melee, and 2) put restrictions on shooting when in melee. Both these things offer some tactical choice - the first means you need to consider targetting - is it better to focus fire with a penalty or aim for an unengaged target? How do I position myself so that i don't become engaged in melee (or have a backup plan for when I do). However, the first thing that many games do is offer feats or widgets to take away those restrictions. This has two problems - it makes archery boring again and if makes these feats compulsory as archery has to then be balanced around the assumption that everyone will take them (so if you don't take them your archer will feel inneffective.)
This is the illusion of choice - it's also adding complexity to a game, for the sole reason of allowing the players to remove it and has the byproduct of making anyone who doesn't specialise in archery suck at it more then they should.
Apparently you must have a PhD in RPGs, since the concepts you have described above seem to be incomprehensible to the average poster on this thread. Or maybe there are none so blind as those who don't want to see...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 18, 2020, 09:29:32 PM
Yeah, because we all want to play Assembly-Line: The RPG. How dare he want variety in gameplay!
Take the Druid example from the video. Druids already have many more options then turning into Dinosaurs and Biting and Clawing.
Has he tried, I dont know, not turning into a Dinosaur?
Quote from: JeffB on December 18, 2020, 06:16:28 PM
...But I also think his problem is he has been running one of the APs for the past year. IME, APs are a poor way to run a game anyway unless you want to play out a movie script (which is truly an "illusion of choice" problem in gaming) , and to top it off the general conclusion is that Paizo did a subpar job on the first one they released because it was being written and whatnot as final development was being done (like Tyranny of Dragons, and 5E)....
That is on Baizuo.
They designed the game with the intention to sell AP's to run it. They are in no position to cry foul now just because they stuffed it on release.
Absolutely legitimate to critique the game when played as presented by Baizuo on release.
Once you put out the product - no backsies!
Quote from: JeffB on December 18, 2020, 06:22:22 PM
Quote from: Slambo on December 18, 2020, 03:22:41 PM
I bet, i saw a ton of comments basically telling him he cant have a negative opinion on PF vause he has a youtube channel and people might not try it if he does. A few mentioned the game is hurting for players, but im not sure if theyre reliable for the purpose of this thread.
Yeah, those were funny. I mean, the guy has a quarter million subscribers and is apparently a big influencer on yootoob, so it has the potential to hurt, but still- he cannot have an opinion and post it? ::)
He played the game for a year. He didn't run a couple of one shots then post a scathing diatribe. Ran it RAW for a whole year.
He has a right to his opinion.
He must know that putting his opinion up for the world to see has cost him any future free books or friendly relations with Baizuo. Which IMHO takes a bit of conviction on his part.
And while it is perfectly reasonable to disagree with his views (after all they must be selling that thing to someone...) The fact that he publicly nuked his warm relationship with Baizuo in the process does give some weight to his criticisms.
A Response to @Taking20 Regarding Pathfinder 2e
This guy seems like he knows a bit more then Cody.
Watching these videos is like locking two spergs in a small room and encouraging them to fight.
Everything I've heard about Pathfinder 2 suggests that it leans more toward tactical complexity then build speciality. (Which doesn't appeal to me personally - if I want tactical complexity I'll play a game where I can win against a real opponent not a GM's encounter).
I don't give much credit to anyone with a Youtube channel, it's seems so driven by clicks and views and an element of cult of personality.
I still think that if you're a serious person you'll put your views in writing.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 19, 2020, 12:01:03 AM
A Response to @Taking20 Regarding Pathfinder 2e
This guy seems like he knows a bit more then Cody.
And still at 5:40 says the optimal play for 3.5 wizard againt a goliath spider is casting fireball.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 07, 2020, 10:17:40 PM
Seriously, Paizo was in a no-win situation.
I think they could have done very well if they'd embraced 5e ca 2016, when it was clearly a big success and 5e was OGL. 5e hardback versions of their better regarded APs would have sold extremely well, possibly better than the WoTC hardbacks. Even a 5e based 2nd edition of Starfinder.
Paizo's biggest problem is not their politics, it's their delusion that they are games designers, rather than magazine publishers. The AP model (which was really Continuity Dungeon magazine) worked great while they were piggybacking on 3.5e. They could have done just as well piggybacking on 5e.
Quote from: S'mon on December 19, 2020, 06:59:46 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 07, 2020, 10:17:40 PM
Seriously, Paizo was in a no-win situation.
I think they could have done very well if they'd embraced 5e ca 2016, when it was clearly a big success and 5e was OGL. 5e hardback versions of their better regarded APs would have sold extremely well, possibly better than the WoTC hardbacks. Even a 5e based 2nd edition of Starfinder.
Paizo's biggest problem is not their politics, it's their delusion that they are games designers, rather than magazine publishers. The AP model (which was really Continuity Dungeon magazine) worked great while they were piggybacking on 3.5e. They could have done just as well piggybacking on 5e.
Oh come on! They have game designers, much of their content has been game design and generally better than 3.5. They got more things right than wrong in their update to 3.5 for sure.
Its easy to be critical after the fact.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 18, 2020, 10:53:04 PM
Quote from: JeffB on December 18, 2020, 06:16:28 PM
...But I also think his problem is he has been running one of the APs for the past year. IME, APs are a poor way to run a game anyway unless you want to play out a movie script (which is truly an "illusion of choice" problem in gaming) , and to top it off the general conclusion is that Paizo did a subpar job on the first one they released because it was being written and whatnot as final development was being done (like Tyranny of Dragons, and 5E)....
That is on Baizuo.
They designed the game with the intention to sell AP's to run it. They are in no position to cry foul now just because they stuffed it on release.
Absolutely legitimate to critique the game when played as presented by Baizuo on release.
Once you put out the product - no backsies!
Quote from: JeffB on December 18, 2020, 06:22:22 PM
Quote from: Slambo on December 18, 2020, 03:22:41 PM
I bet, i saw a ton of comments basically telling him he cant have a negative opinion on PF vause he has a youtube channel and people might not try it if he does. A few mentioned the game is hurting for players, but im not sure if theyre reliable for the purpose of this thread.
Yeah, those were funny. I mean, the guy has a quarter million subscribers and is apparently a big influencer on yootoob, so it has the potential to hurt, but still- he cannot have an opinion and post it? ::)
He played the game for a year. He didn't run a couple of one shots then post a scathing diatribe. Ran it RAW for a whole year.
He has a right to his opinion.
He must know that putting his opinion up for the world to see has cost him any future free books or friendly relations with Baizuo. Which IMHO takes a bit of conviction on his part.
And while it is perfectly reasonable to disagree with his views (after all they must be selling that thing to someone...) The fact that he publicly nuked his warm relationship with Baizuo in the process does give some weight to his criticisms.
Of course he has the right to his opinion. I was just summarizing some of the points in his video.
I don't have any judgement of the game one way or the other, because I have only run a brief test using the Demo adventure when it released in 2019.
He may be spot-on, or maybe not.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 18, 2020, 09:23:55 PMUh, no?
Not an argument.
QuoteFirst, im pretty sure most of us play RPGs to escape the constraints of the real world, not replay them.
So you play omnipotent grey blob with the rest of your party?
Sounds like RPG communism comrade! ;)
So no one person would ever be encouraged to do specific actions over another. Specialization is tripple plus unfun and gets you sent to punishment room.
QuoteNot every system is built so that you are an expert in a handful of things and a noob at everything else. It is a common design problem in RPGs, but not every one suffers it to the same extent. If you abstract enough, a shark is a camel, because they both are living creatures. That doesn't make a shark a camel...
Your logic seems utterly pedantic. I get what you mean where overspecialization lends itself to repitition (to a boring degree) but your engaging in a level of pedantry as to what counts and what doesn't.
I also don't get what you mean with the camel thing. If you abstract enough a camel will become in practice like a shark. 'I like abstraction and any amount more or less of what i like is octuple plus unfun and anybody that has fun with it is just wrong;.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 19, 2020, 10:44:48 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 18, 2020, 09:23:55 PMUh, no?
Not an argument.
QuoteFirst, im pretty sure most of us play RPGs to escape the constraints of the real world, not replay them.
So you play omnipotent grey blob with the rest of your party?
Sounds like RPG communism comrade! ;)
So no one person would ever be encouraged to do specific actions over another. Specialization is tripple plus unfun and gets you sent to punishment room.
QuoteNot every system is built so that you are an expert in a handful of things and a noob at everything else. It is a common design problem in RPGs, but not every one suffers it to the same extent. If you abstract enough, a shark is a camel, because they both are living creatures. That doesn't make a shark a camel...
Your logic seems utterly pedantic. I get what you mean where overspecialization lends itself to repitition (to a boring degree) but your engaging in a level of pedantry as to what counts and what doesn't.
I also don't get what you mean with the camel thing. If you abstract enough a camel will become in practice like a shark. 'I like abstraction and any amount more or less of what i like is octuple plus unfun and anybody that has fun with it is just wrong;.
Dude, since you are so enamored with arguing against ideas I never expressed, I'll leave you to continue the discussion with the rest of the voices in your head...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 19, 2020, 01:00:50 PM
Dude, since you are so enamored with arguing against ideas I never expressed, I'll leave you to continue the discussion with the rest of the voices in your head...
I apreciate it.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 19, 2020, 12:01:03 AM
A Response to @Taking20 Regarding Pathfinder 2e
...some rando's video retort....
This guy seems like he knows a bit more then Cody.
Ehhh...
His chief arguments seem to be:
- Don't fully engage in the system mastery that is designed into the game. Ummm ok...
- Then gives an example of anti-optimal "creativity' that is wholly dependent on the magic items his party happened to have. Which I would say actually is the optimal strategy for the situation, as it defeated the monster in the fastest way possible!
- Then talks about changing the AP which Paizo released at launch...
Paizo designed the game with the intention to sell AP's to run with it. If they stuffed the release AP; that is on them.
Also: "change what you don't like" is not an argument.
Sure, I could probably change enough stuff to make the Cyborg Commando RPG work at my table, with my play style.. The ability to do that is in no way a counterargument to any critique I may make of the of the game system as presented by its creators.
I had no idea PF2's fanbase took his video so seriously! Poked around on youtube for a bit, and holy shit dude's...
It's just an RPG...
Quote from: Jaeger on December 19, 2020, 07:21:44 PM
Ehhh...
His chief arguments seem to be:
- Don't fully engage in the system mastery that is designed into the game. Ummm ok...
- Then gives an example of anti-optimal "creativity' that is wholly dependent on the magic items his party happened to have. Which I would say actually is the optimal strategy for the situation, as it defeated the monster in the fastest way possible!
- Then talks about changing the AP which Paizo released at launch...
Paizo designed the game with the intention to sell AP's to run with it. If they stuffed the release AP; that is on them.
Also: "change what you don't like" is not an argument.
Sure, I could probably change enough stuff to make the Cyborg Commando RPG work at my table, with my play style.. The ability to do that is in no way a counterargument to any critique I may make of the of the game system as presented by its creators.
I had no idea PF2's fanbase took his video so seriously! Poked around on youtube for a bit, and holy shit dude's...
It's just an RPG...
Don't forget those examples he gives were from his D&D 5e game (guess he couldn't even think of any for pathfinder).
I wonder if anyone enjoyed the Pathfinder 2 "Playtest" game books, and just kept playing "that" version of the game? I mean, it was a complete game system....
Quote from: Jaeger on December 19, 2020, 07:21:44 PM
Also: "change what you don't like" is not an argument.
Lets do this first: How exactly is "change what you don't like" is not an argument?
If hitting yourself in the face starts to hurt then stop hitting yourself in the face seems like a reasonable suggestion.
Quote
- Then gives an example of anti-optimal "creativity' that is wholly dependent on the magic items his party happened to have. Which I would say actually is the optimal strategy for the situation, as it defeated the monster in the fastest way possible!
Well that is the thing. I have played through the adventure that Cody is talking about and the combat encounters are variable, deliberately so I would assume, so doing the same thing over and over is actually sub optimal.
Take the Ranger for example. There are encounters where the monsters have high damage reduction to piercing attacks so it is sub optimal to stand back and try and shoot.
There are encounters with monsters that can be convinced to ally with the party so it is sub optimal to stand back and try and shoot.
There are encounters with storm weather conditions so it is sub optimal to stand back and try and shoot.
So if the party is just doing the same series of actions in every encounter then I can believe that they can be bored but it would be impossible for them to be optimal actions.
Quote
- Then talks about changing the AP which Paizo released at launch...
Paizo designed the game with the intention to sell AP's to run with it. If they stuffed the release AP; that is on them.
The main concern that I have with the AP is the lack of an overarching plot hook running through the campaign. Really it plays more like a travelogue with the PCs traveling through the world solving pretty much unrelated problems.
There was one killer encounter in book one which, from the sounds of it, was a problem for a few parties.
And of course the woke BS stuffed into it, which I try and edit out as best as I can.
Quote
Sure, I could probably change enough stuff to make the Cyborg Commando RPG work at my table, with my play style.. The ability to do that is in no way a counterargument to any critique I may make of the of the game system as presented by its creators.
Good luck with Cyborg Commando. I played it once about 30 years ago and that was enough for me.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 20, 2020, 03:37:04 PM
Quote from: Jaeger on December 19, 2020, 07:21:44 PM
Also: "change what you don't like" is not an argument.
Lets do this first: How exactly is "change what you don't like" is not an argument?
If hitting yourself in the face starts to hurt then stop hitting yourself in the face seems like a reasonable suggestion.
He did stop hitting himself in the face. He has stopped playing PF2.
I set out my opinion on this with my cyborg commando example. But maybe another analogy will make my position clearer.
Imagine I put out a youtube video reviewing a car, I say: "The cars engine lacks power compared to other cars in its class.", And then someone says "That's not a fair criticism because you could add aftermarket upgrades that can easily boost its performance!"
That is not a valid counter-argument of my car review because I am not reviewing the car with aftermarket upgrades that would change its performance. I am reviewing the car as it drives delivered from the factory.
The man ran the game for a sufficient space of time to have a valid opinion on the PF2 rules set. In my opinion none of the arguments also-sperg gave showed that take20-sperg somehow didn't understand the PF2 system he had been playing for a year.
PF2 was just not for him. It happens.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 21, 2020, 06:04:57 AMImagine I put out a youtube video reviewing a car, I say: "The cars engine lacks power compared to other cars in its class.", And then someone says "That's not a fair criticism because you could add aftermarket upgrades that can easily boost its performance!"
That is not a valid counter-argument of my car review because I am not reviewing the car with aftermarket upgrades that would change its performance. I am reviewing the car as it drives delivered from the factory.
This reminds me of ye olde days of the edition wars, when I was told several times that if I had only played 4e with the 3 core books then I had never tried the "real game", which apparently required a dozen additional hardbacks.
Quote from: Dimitrios on December 21, 2020, 11:18:10 AM
Quote from: Jaeger on December 21, 2020, 06:04:57 AMImagine I put out a youtube video reviewing a car, I say: "The cars engine lacks power compared to other cars in its class.", And then someone says "That's not a fair criticism because you could add aftermarket upgrades that can easily boost its performance!"
That is not a valid counter-argument of my car review because I am not reviewing the car with aftermarket upgrades that would change its performance. I am reviewing the car as it drives delivered from the factory.
This reminds me of ye olde days of the edition wars, when I was told several times that if I had only played 4e with the 3 core books then I had never tried the "real game", which apparently required a dozen additional hardbacks.
And that sort of sentiment in game development worries the hell out of me, because it doesn't bode well for gaming. We already see enough of that shit with video games.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 21, 2020, 06:04:57 AM
Quote from: Shasarak on December 20, 2020, 03:37:04 PM
Quote from: Jaeger on December 19, 2020, 07:21:44 PM
Also: "change what you don't like" is not an argument.
Lets do this first: How exactly is "change what you don't like" is not an argument?
If hitting yourself in the face starts to hurt then stop hitting yourself in the face seems like a reasonable suggestion.
He did stop hitting himself in the face. He has stopped playing PF2.
I set out my opinion on this with my cyborg commando example. But maybe another analogy will make my position clearer.
Imagine I put out a youtube video reviewing a car, I say: "The cars engine lacks power compared to other cars in its class.", And then someone says "That's not a fair criticism because you could add aftermarket upgrades that can easily boost its performance!"
That is not a valid counter-argument of my car review because I am not reviewing the car with aftermarket upgrades that would change its performance. I am reviewing the car as it drives delivered from the factory.
The man ran the game for a sufficient space of time to have a valid opinion on the PF2 rules set. In my opinion none of the arguments also-sperg gave showed that take20-sperg somehow didn't understand the PF2 system he had been playing for a year.
PF2 was just not for him. It happens.
Its also cause "if you dont like it change it" works for any game.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 19, 1970, 09:48:50 AM
And that sort of sentiment in game development worries the hell out of me, because it doesn't bode well for gaming. We already see enough of that shit with video games.
There's a reason I switched my gameplan for my system from "we'll add the missing pieces in a future supplement" to "everything a player will ever need in one book... everything the GM will ever need in two." (I decided on two smaller books precisely to keep the cost of entry for players to a minimum).
I think "sure you can build your own monsters and dungeons and realms using the rules in the core books... but this supplement gives you a bunch of those things without all that effort" will sell with a lot more goodwill than "here's another plugin you need just for basic functionality."
Quote from: Jaeger on December 21, 2020, 06:04:57 AM
PF2 was just not for him. It happens.
This is the real crux of the argument.
Everything else is just bullshit "reasoning" to get to the result you want. You can see that right from the whole the characters do the same thing every fight - yeah you play DnD right? o_O
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 21, 2020, 01:44:02 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 19, 1970, 09:48:50 AM
And that sort of sentiment in game development worries the hell out of me, because it doesn't bode well for gaming. We already see enough of that shit with video games.
There's a reason I switched my gameplan for my system from "we'll add the missing pieces in a future supplement" to "everything a player will ever need in one book... everything the GM will ever need in two." (I decided on two smaller books precisely to keep the cost of entry for players to a minimum).
I think "sure you can build your own monsters and dungeons and realms using the rules in the core books... but this supplement gives you a bunch of those things without all that effort" will sell with a lot more goodwill than "here's another plugin you need just for basic functionality."
I don't have a problem with the "tool kit" approach, per se, but a game should either be a tool kit and do that well or it should be a self-contained game and do that well. Either do what you are doing or bill the thing as a tool kit clearly up front, with the expectation that the buyer can either put in the work with the kit to make their own version of the game or they can buy the later supplements that will build on the kit (and conveniently also demonstrate how to use the kit in the process).
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on December 21, 2020, 02:08:46 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 21, 2020, 01:44:02 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 19, 1970, 09:48:50 AM
And that sort of sentiment in game development worries the hell out of me, because it doesn't bode well for gaming. We already see enough of that shit with video games.
There's a reason I switched my gameplan for my system from "we'll add the missing pieces in a future supplement" to "everything a player will ever need in one book... everything the GM will ever need in two." (I decided on two smaller books precisely to keep the cost of entry for players to a minimum).
I think "sure you can build your own monsters and dungeons and realms using the rules in the core books... but this supplement gives you a bunch of those things without all that effort" will sell with a lot more goodwill than "here's another plugin you need just for basic functionality."
I don't have a problem with the "tool kit" approach, per se, but a game should either be a tool kit and do that well or it should be a self-contained game and do that well. Either do what you are doing or bill the thing as a tool kit clearly up front, with the expectation that the buyer can either put in the work with the kit to make their own version of the game or they can buy the later supplements that will build on the kit (and conveniently also demonstrate how to use the kit in the process).
I hear you.
My GM book has over 200 pages of pre-built monsters in it, there's plenty of pre-built traps, afflictions (curses, diseases, long term injuries), vehicles, even a pre-built campaign region with settlements and ruins to explore.
But I also include sections on how to build those things (all the monsters in the book were built in line with the included rules that amount to 9 pages) for yourself because no catalogue could possibly include everything. The plan for continuing the line is to sell "world books/adventure sites" where, if there's any sort of unique monster or vehicle or what not in the area, it'd be included in that book... but they'd still be built using the core book guidelines.
So basically the supplements would be a service; I'm doing the design work using the system so you don't have to and am getting paid for the work done.
Probably the perfect example of this would actually be the Battletech Tech Readouts. Hundreds of Mechs/Vehicles/etc. with histories and artwork, but you could build every last one of them just with the core rulebooks. You don't NEED the Tech Readouts to play, but they're cool to read through and get ideas from.
Well we play PF2 but in my own homebrew world.
I never run anything RAW. I always adjust the game system to my world not the other way around.
I have yet to see my players have the kind of issues the guy in the video is having so maybe its his players lack of creativity that is killing the game system for him /shrug
Min / Max players create their own excitement, and then their own boredom. "This one set of actions deals the most damage. I guess I should always do this, then?"
Zzzzzzzz........
Taking 20 has posted another video going further into "illusion of choice". But I haven't been able to listen yet- has anyone else?
Quote from: JeffB on December 22, 2020, 10:14:04 AM
Taking 20 has posted another video going further into "illusion of choice". But I haven't been able to listen yet- has anyone else?
Got to keep feeding the content train somehow.
Finally watched it. He does a good job in this one providing clear examples of his issues and addressed his critics admirably. I came to similar conclusions years and years ago- most modern versions of D&D (PF1/2, 5e, 3.x, etc) just don't provide the type of gaming experience I want to have, and if I have to choose between sub optimal but crunchy and hard to run, and sub optimal but less crunchy and easier to run, I'm going less crunchy every single time.
He sums up his choice in game types as "I'd rather make it up than look it up"- which I wholeheartedly concur with.
Quote from: JeffB on December 22, 2020, 03:13:38 PM
"I'd rather make it up than look it up"- which I wholeheartedly concur with.
Same to an extent, but if so i wonder why he went back to 5e specifically, other than money (5e attracts a bigger crowd)
Quote from: Slambo on December 22, 2020, 04:41:52 PM
Quote from: JeffB on December 22, 2020, 03:13:38 PM
"I'd rather make it up than look it up"- which I wholeheartedly concur with.
Same to an extent, but if so i wonder why he went back to 5e specifically, other than money (5e attracts a bigger crowd)
From what I gather and his age, he started playing in 3.5. I'm guessing 5E feels pretty "light" to him, but I'd say you have to ask him* I'm sure $ are a factor, especially if his income revolves around his yootoob channel.
*And If he's like me it may be a player preference vs. GM preference. I've stuck with games that didn't do nearly as much for me because my players had a preference vs the games I like the most.
Taking20 DESTROYS Pathfinder 2e/Proves 5e is Better*!
*which really should tell you how bad PF 2e is. :P
PS: Obviously, it was more nuanced than that, but the internet and its clickbait, amirite?
Quote from: VisionStorm on December 22, 2020, 05:05:40 PM
Taking20 DESTROYS Pathfinder 2e/Proves 5e is Better*!
I tries to listen but could not get past how brilliant his game group is really if you get to know them.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 22, 2020, 06:13:54 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on December 22, 2020, 05:05:40 PM
Taking20 DESTROYS Pathfinder 2e/Proves 5e is Better*!
I tries to listen but could not get past how brilliant his game group is really if you get to know them.
Yeah, but that's everybody's game group though. Whether it is actually true or not.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 22, 2020, 06:18:55 PM
Yeah, but that's everybody's game group though. Whether it is actually true or not.
It is pretty much the DM version of "let me tell you about my character" level of cringe.
So who has time to listen to a pompous jackass spout off for 50 fucking minutes?
Seriously what is it with these youtubers and their ridiculousness longwindedness?
I really enjoyed the 1st Bestiary for PF 1E, the Monster Codex, NPC Codex, etc. The Advanced Player's Guide, and Gamemastery Guide, as well.
Then the approach with PF 2E was; let's change the game and make it non-compatible with 1E, and reprint everything.
Uh...... I'll pass on that BS.
Quote from: TJS on December 22, 2020, 07:35:29 PM
So who has time to listen to a pompous jackass spout off for 50 fucking minutes?
Seriously what is it with these youtubers and their ridiculousness longwindedness?
The ones I'm totally enamored with are the ones who spend the first five minutes telling us what's going on in their personal lives... as if I could possibly give a shit what their little booger machines are doing in school or camp or juvie or where ever.
Quote from: TJS on December 22, 2020, 07:35:29 PM
So who has time to listen to a pompous jackass spout off for 50 fucking minutes?
Seriously what is it with these youtubers and their ridiculousness longwindedness?
I always make time for Pundit.
You meant Pundit. Right?
Greetings!
Well, the guy who has left Pathfinder 2 and made the video does have a strong argument about how the mechanics *push* you to build a character, and I can definitely see the implied *rotation* of abilities that should be proceeded with for otherwise optimal mechanical results and performance.
I know all about character class "Rotations" from years playing World of Warcraft.
However, since D&D and its derivatives are tabletop roleplaying games--and people are not going into some uber *Raid* where every point of DPS is often of primary importance--I see many players just selecting feats and such often on their conceptualization of their character, regardless of any perceived mechanical benefits. A Ranger character for example, otherwise an archer, taking some feat to expand their healing abilities, or some specialized Knowledge-related feat that allows the character additional languages and cultural knowledge benefits--certainly may not be *mechanically optimal*--but fit right in with the character's background or current experiences and vision. That is perfectly acceptable, and who the hell cares if that character's "build" isn't somehow "mechanically optimal"? That is part of what makes tabletop RPG's fun--is creating and playing a character that is immersed in a fantastic world. Mechanical game considerations can often detract from such a goal in huge ways.
He isn't wrong though in how Pathfinder--and 3E before it--pushed character development to adopt such builds and rotations though. There is or can be a definite dynamic there. I can see how such a dynamic could make many such characters over time feel more and more like "cookie cutters" with set rotations and such--but that is why it is important to be able to embrace a broader view of character development, and just develop a particular character how you want, that matches how you envision the character's background and current development.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Shasarak on December 22, 2020, 06:53:33 PM
Quote from: Jaeger on December 22, 2020, 06:18:55 PM
Yeah, but that's everybody's game group though. Whether it is actually true or not.
It is pretty much the DM version of "let me tell you about my character" level of cringe.
He only did that because critics were calling his players stupid power gamers. He was merely defending his players.
Quote from: Snowman0147 on December 23, 2020, 01:17:57 AM
Quote from: Shasarak on December 22, 2020, 06:53:33 PM
Quote from: Jaeger on December 22, 2020, 06:18:55 PM
Yeah, but that's everybody's game group though. Whether it is actually true or not.
It is pretty much the DM version of "let me tell you about my character" level of cringe.
He only did that because critics were calling his players stupid power gamers. He was merely defending his players.
His "optimal" players got TPK'd. Thats not optimal so I would agree that they do not seem to be power gamers.
Quote from: TJS on December 22, 2020, 07:35:29 PM
So who has time to listen to a pompous jackass spout off for 50 fucking minutes?
Seriously what is it with these youtubers and their ridiculousness longwindedness?
I put videos on as background audio while I'm doing other things on the computer.
I had to turn this one off halfway through. His droning on about builds and bonuses was putting me to sleep.