Video: Pathfinder is Going Full Woke, But They Were Doomed to Brokeness
Today's video is in response to how a lot of people have been asking me about Pathfinder's playtest and its preachy SJW material. But I think it's irrelevant, they're already doomed, and in this video I explain why.
[video=youtube_share;2UDEQCJEWKo]https://youtu.be/2UDEQCJEWKo[/youtube]
So check it out, and share it!
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Brigham Anniversary Pipe + McLintock's Syrian Latakia
Pretty good video, I listened to the whole thing. Obviously I agree, though I think Paizo should be converting PF material to 5e and trying to move back to where they were in the 3e years. If they were smart they would be looking to heal the 4e/PF rift and bring unity to the Force - to the D&D market - as a mid-tier publisher again.
On the socjus; I stopped buying Paizo stuff when they went full SJW in the Jessica Price years - she wasn't a high ranking employee but she did an amazing job turning their forums from the 'fun and happy place' Lisa Stevens wanted, into something resembling rpgnet.
But WoTC would have to be a lot more aggressively SJW before I'd stop buying their stuff. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion of course; it's when the company make clear they hate their customers that they should be boycotted. Jeremy Crawford is silly and annoying at times but he doesn't act like a hate-filled loon in the manner of Price. I understand that WoTC people post a lot of anti-right-wing comments on Twitter which I know is offensive to some people, but I guess I'm just a soft fuzzy liberal. :p
I generally like Pathfinder. I was a big fan of 3rd Edition D&D along with the entire d20 phenomenon and so I just see Pathfinder as one part of that. I like all of the class options and variants, it makes characters customizable for different concepts and campaigns.
In large part Pathfinder succeeded because there were so many people who wanted to stick to 3rd Edition. So Pathfinder's popularity is tied up to the tendency of it's players not to want to change systems. Creating a new edition then, right when a major competitor is threatening, does seem unwise. There are a lot of reason to stay with an edition - with Pathfinder in particular there are mountains of rules associated with it that would be rendered obsolete with a new edition. Something that might turn away traditional players even if the SJW stuff doesn't.
Speaking of which, I'm tired of giving my money to people who hate me and and who want to destroy Western Civilization. At this point, I wouldn't buy any RPG book whose creators have a leftist agenda, I don't care how good the rules, writing, or setting may be.
Quote from: ShieldWife;1055328I generally like Pathfinder. I was a big fan of 3rd Edition D&D along with the entire d20 phenomenon and so I just see Pathfinder as one part of that. I like all of the class options and variants, it makes characters customizable t different concepts and campaigns.
In large part Pathfinder succeeded because there were so many people who wanted to stick to 3rd Edition. So Pathfinder's popularity is tied up to the tendency of it's players not to want to change systems. Creating a new edition then, right when a major competitor is threatening, does seem unwise. There are a lot of reason to stay with an edition - with Pathfinder in particular there are mountains of rules associated with it that would be rendered obsolete with a new edition. Something that might turn away traditional players even if the SJW stuff doesn't.
Speaking of which, I'm tired of giving my money to people who hate me and and who want to destroy Western Civilization. At this point, I wouldn't buy any RPG book whose creators have a leftist agenda, I don't care how good the rules, writing, or setting may be.
Luckily there are plenty of good game designers in the OSR who don't despise you, and you can support!
You are showing an improvement in your oration.
I think your assessment of WOTC LOSING 66% of their customer base was close. They lost more like 3/4ths instead.
From what I saw from hanging around TSR at the time AD&D players were overall ok with 2e because modules were still more or less still backwards compatible. Aside from AC there was not alot that needed converting. As for White Wolf initially they were riding on the popularity of the Ann Rice books and they occupied an as yet mostly untapped niche and pretty much took that over.
Also from what I saw it wasnt Pazio swooping in seeing 4e was going to bomb. It was Pazio A: taking advantage of their well built up 3e fanbase as at the time they were making alot of 3e stuff. What may have tipped their hand was I believe the more stringent lockdown on 3rd party material for 4e. No license for 4e likely helped decide Paizo to keep 3e alive via Pathfinder and this keep their established customer base.
And this may be the real problem for Paizo. They seem to have totally forgotten why they rose to popularity in the first place.
Id say overall WOTC hasnt gone overboard with the SJW-ish stuff. So far its been just two spots over the course of the books published so far. (And at least one article in Dragon+) I do not count the weird comments by Mearls or others in this as it is an individual making statements rather than the company itself. Pazio on the other hand has gotten progressively more blatant and aggressive about their SJW forced inclusiveness.
Will Paizo go tits up with PF2? Hard to say at this point. They will though likely lose a chunk of their customer base. How much depends on how incompatible 2e is.
I don't think some realize how popular 5E is imo. Some here keep saying keep publishing #E. If they were not losing fans to 5E I would agree. Except it seems that 5E has taken enoug of their fans and market share away from them that they felt the need to do something new. Which they needed to do because the 3E then 3.5 engine began showing it's age. It's works and enjoy it yet it has many flaws. By the time Paizo addressed the flaws like high level play slowing game play at the table and linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard 5E was released. Too little and more importantly too late. Matters were not helped that their design of many things feats, classes and archetypes is so haphazard and poorly implemented imo. Either something is too good or the paper is written on is fit to be torn and used as a toilet paper. 5E is not perfect yet they strive to find the proper middle ground and usually listen to the fanbase. Paizo nerfs stuff that they should not and leaves broken rules as is. With the gun rules playtest Paizo proved they refused to listen to the fanbase. They made one ranged weapon way too strong even after the fans told them not to release the gun rules as is. The SJW rhetoric was the icing on the cake. It's as if like too many companies that they don't realize that their competitor learned from their past mistakes and has a better product that actually address and in most cases fixes the falws of theirs.
I have to disagree about 4E. If 4E had been written in a style similar to 5E most of the fanbase would not have cared. 4E was written in a style to cater to the mmo crowd. And no 4E is not nor or plays like a MMO so find some new material. I know people online and outside of it who love 5E yet despise 4E and pretend to ignore that 5E borrows many elements from 4E proving the old saying that their a sucker born every minute.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1055330Luckily there are plenty of good game designers in the OSR who don't despise you, and you can support!
Unfortunately, in my case (orthodox Catholic), you may not be one of them. ;)
I think what happened to Hasbro customers when D&D 4e came out is now going to happen to Pazio customers when Pathfinder 2.0 comes out. There is always a risk in splitting the gamer base when releasing new editions though.
I think a secondary reason for their PF2 push is the failure of Starfinder. They were banking on riding the zeitgeist of space adventure movies as currently incarnated in the form of Guardians of the Galaxy to become The Next Big Thing. Despite it being the new shiny toy, people were still more interested in playing D&D5e or other lighter games instead. Even if they were already working on PF2, the lackluster reception of Starfinder made them go overtime on it.
Quote from: Ninneveh;1055433I think a secondary reason for their PF2 push is the failure of Starfinder. They were banking on riding the zeitgeist of space adventure movies as currently incarnated in the form of Guardians of the Galaxy to become The Next Big Thing. Despite it being the new shiny toy, people were still more interested in playing D&D5e or other lighter games instead. Even if they were already working on PF2, the lackluster reception of Starfinder made them go overtime on it.
I wasn't aware Starfinder's performance was lackluster. We have another weekend where the SF society has to split into two groups to accomodate the player turnout. Maybe that's just my local scene, but that's my experience.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1055436I wasn't aware Starfinder's performance was lackluster. We have another weekend where the SF society has to split into two groups to accomodate the player turnout. Maybe that's just my local scene, but that's my experience.
There are no games being played in my area at the several local FLGS, its a sea of D&D5E. Probably not the most scientific or objective way of going about it, but judging by online discussion (in particular lack thereof) and the low number of views on youtube of Starfinder actual plays, I cannot see how Paizo is happy with the game's current popularity. They needed a homerun, they got a bunt instead.
Does the dangerhair hipster who is in charge at Paizo still have worms crawling out of her pussy?
Seriously, Pathfinder 1.0 was awesome, but 2.0 is going to suck.
I wish these hipsters would shut the fuck up and go back to Portland. They need to stop ruining my hobby.
I don't play RPG's to be lectured about political bullshit, whether it be left-wing or right-wing.
Hence why I hate the directions taken by Paizo, Onyx Path, and Nu-White Wolf.
I think Starfinder would be considered successful by normal RPG standards, but obviously is no D&D 5e.
Quote from: Omega;1055333You are showing an improvement in your oration.
Definitely smoother. Still needs to make his points in half the time.
Pathfinder 2.0 did not have to suck. In trying to please everyone they released a rpg that I should like in terms of mechanics and it leaves me utterly cold in interest. Their new found wokeness just made me feel no regret that I do.
Quote from: S'mon;1055458I think Starfinder would be considered successful by normal RPG standards, but obviously is no D&D 5e.
I agree, but I also contend that they were hoping it to be a success on the level of D&D5e to forestall their decline of Pathfinder.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1055330Luckily there are plenty of good game designers in the OSR who don't despise you, and you can support!
Although depending on who you are, you can probably find some in the OSR who despise you, too. I'm pretty sure Zak S and the Pundit have no use for me and mine, for example. :)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1055495Although depending on who you are, you can probably find some in the OSR who despise you, too. I'm pretty sure Zak S and the Pundit have no use for me and mine, for example. :)
Well you are the
Enemy of Love and Gaming! :p
Quote from: sureshot;1055467Pathfinder 2.0 did not have to suck. In trying to please everyone they released a rpg that I should like in terms of mechanics and it leaves me utterly cold in interest. Their new found wokeness just made me feel no regret that I do.
It is their first try at actually designing an RPG, so it's bound to be massively flawed.
Just play GURPS 4e
The only Woken/Broken I like was created and performed by Matt Hardy.
If they wrote an rpg using his schtick, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. As the whole thing would likely be hilarious.
Broken/Woken Universe as an RPG setting. That just gives me instant joy thinking about it.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1055498It is their first try at actually designing an RPG, so it's bound to be massively flawed.
It is kinda funny that after 10 years they have apparently not noticed that they absolutely suck at rules design! They seem at some point to have forgotten that with PF they were standing on the shoulders of relative giants like Jonathan Tweet, the designers of 3e D&D. I ran PF to level 14 with allowing the Advanced Players Guide, where they first added in their own design work, and it was absolute garbage - it made 3e D&D look like a paragon of intelligent design & cross-class balance. :D
Quote from: S'mon;1055539It is kinda funny that after 10 years they have apparently not noticed that they absolutely suck at rules design! They seem at some point to have forgotten that with PF they were standing on the shoulders of relative giants like Jonathan Tweet, the designers of 3e D&D. I ran PF to level 14 with allowing the Advanced Players Guide, where they first added in their own design work, and it was absolute garbage - it made 3e D&D look like a paragon of intelligent design & cross-class balance. :D
They COPIED from Jonathan Tweet et al. Legally mind you, but it was just copying. Then they got praised for it, and let it go to their heads, not realizing the amount of work required into making a system as complex as 3.x.
I noticed a definite decline in quality and a lack of willingness to listen to the fanbase after the release of the Advanced Players guide. It was the last decent book imo. Then the playtest fiasco with the gun rules. The nerfing of stuff done poorly while bending over backwards to please PFS. The complete stubborness and unwillingness to find the proper middle ground in creating new archetypes and feats. https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo-bard-archetypes/geisha/ . Hopefully the group has 10 minutes to wait at all times for me to use it.
What really proved to me that their success has gone to thdir heads was the release of the Advanced Class Guide. A poorly edited book, purposefully released at Gencon that year so they could make money. Requiring 9-10 pages of errata so it can be used. The only reason it was that many pages was they used small print in the errata PDF. if they used their standard it was much worse. Most rpg companies would be apologetic and contrite at having released such a book. Not them. Barely a apology. The one given was sorely lacking. At least they admitted it was rushed in development for Gencon.
We as gamers usually don't like reprints of existing material. They began in the newer books to reprint old material. At first it was barely noticable. Then in books like the Adventurers guide it was 1/3-1/4 reprint. They thought the fanbase was stupid to notice or willing to happily pay for reprint. Hint we really really are not. When some fans brought it up politely and rudely. They show they don't like pushback from the fans either constructive or not.
I enjoy Pathfinder for themost part. I am not a fan of the developers, less so after their jumping on the SJW bandwagon.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1055536The only Woken/Broken I like was created and performed by Matt Hardy.
If they wrote an rpg using his schtick, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. As the whole thing would likely be hilarious.
Broken/Woken Universe as an RPG setting. That just gives me instant joy thinking about it.
Broke - Woke - BrokeWoke!
jg
Would they actually be better off at this point just making adventure paths and setting material for 5E?
Focus on their strengths.
Slightly off topic but maybe not. That's now 2 books in a row -- Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron and Waterdeep Dragon Heist -- where WotC felt it was necessary to have a sidebar celebrating how sexually woke both places are. After my defense of the elves in Mordenkainen's I'm starting to feel a little disappointed.
Quote from: KingCheops;1055570After my defense of the elves in Mordenkainen's I'm starting to feel a little disappointed.
Clearly Thou Art An
Alt-Reich Shitlord.
Quote from: KingCheops;1055570Slightly off topic but maybe not. That's now 2 books in a row -- Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron and Waterdeep Dragon Heist -- where WotC felt it was necessary to have a sidebar celebrating how sexually woke both places are. After my defense of the elves in Mordenkainen's I'm starting to feel a little disappointed.
What did the virtue signalers do in
Wayfinder's Guide?
Quote from: Apparition;1055572What did the virtue signalers do in Wayfinder's Guide?
Yeah, specifics are welcome.
With the Realms, it's arguably in keeping with what I've heard about Greenwood's original vision. :)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1055577Yeah, specifics are welcome.
With the Realms, it's arguably in keeping with what I've heard about Greenwood's original vision. :)
Greenwood's Magical Realm?
Quote from: KingCheops;1055570Slightly off topic but maybe not. That's now 2 books in a row -- Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron and Waterdeep Dragon Heist -- where WotC felt it was necessary to have a sidebar celebrating how sexually woke both places are. After my defense of the elves in Mordenkainen's I'm starting to feel a little disappointed.
Well it was not as bad in Mordenkainen as many blew it up to be.
I have not seen these two new books. How bad is it? Just another sidebar or more?
Quote from: RandyB;1055578Greenwood's Magical Realm?
Oh definitely. I always allow as much Greenwood-ism as possible in my FR, while still toning it down considerably from his original vision. :) If there's one pseudo-medieval setting where gay marriage and other Blue Rose-isms seem to fit, it's FR.
Quote from: Apparition;1055572What did the virtue signalers do in Wayfinder's Guide?
The only things I can find by doing a search of the pdf for the word "gender" are:
"Changelings have a fluid relationship with gender, seeing it as one characteristic to change among many others."
"A kalashtar mixes a personal prefix to the name of the quori spirit within the kalashtar. Each spirit has a gender identity, but this might not match the gender identity of the kalashtar host. A female kalashtar may have what others would consider a masculine name, because she's tied to a spirit with a masculine identity."
"The typpical warforged has a muscular, sexless body shape. Some warforged ignore the concept of gender entirely, while others adopt a gender identity in emulation of creatures around them."
If there is something other than those 3 references they don't use the word gender or are from an updated version of the document that I don't have.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1055577With the Realms, it's arguably in keeping with what I've heard about Greenwood's original vision. :)
Right. It's kind of par for the course with the Forgotten Realms. The only difference is that in the past a game designer using published material to elaborate on his or her sexual fantasies was considered embarrassing, whereas now it's apparently the vanguard of wokeness...
Quote from: rgalex;1055598The only things I can find by doing a search of the pdf for the word "gender" are:
"Changelings have a fluid relationship with gender, seeing it as one characteristic to change among many others."
"A kalashtar mixes a personal prefix to the name of the quori spirit within the kalashtar. Each spirit has a gender identity, but this might not match the gender identity of the kalashtar host. A female kalashtar may have what others would consider a masculine name, because she's tied to a spirit with a masculine identity."
"The typpical warforged has a muscular, sexless body shape. Some warforged ignore the concept of gender entirely, while others adopt a gender identity in emulation of creatures around them."
If there is something other than those 3 references they don't use the word gender or are from an updated version of the document that I don't have.
That's certainly enough to make a point. One of the things that's become apparent to me over the years in all of my own gaming experiences is that gender is
completely irrelevant. In 40+ years of gaming, none of our tables have played any scenario where gender matters in the remotest way. Not once.
(The "female characters are weaker" rule in 1e is one of the first things our group ignored, because ... we liked to play strong female characters.)
That Paizo feels the need to mention gender in three different contexts tells me that these writers either have had a very different gaming experience from my own (and thus their game is less likely to appeal to me), or that they are simply inexperienced, and their design ideas have some other origin.
Quote from: rgalex;1055598The only things I can find by doing a search of the pdf for the word "gender" are:
"Changelings have a fluid relationship with gender, seeing it as one characteristic to change among many others."
"A kalashtar mixes a personal prefix to the name of the quori spirit within the kalashtar. Each spirit has a gender identity, but this might not match the gender identity of the kalashtar host. A female kalashtar may have what others would consider a masculine name, because she's tied to a spirit with a masculine identity."
"The typpical warforged has a muscular, sexless body shape. Some warforged ignore the concept of gender entirely, while others adopt a gender identity in emulation of creatures around them."
If there is something other than those 3 references they don't use the word gender or are from an updated version of the document that I don't have.
Hmmm I remember reading something a couple of weeks ago that sent an Alt-Right Shitlord Snowflake alert to my brain but I can't find it now. I must have dreamed it into being and must now do some serious self-contemplation. I seem to recall some sort of sidebar with a sort of inclusivity statement but I can't find it on DnD Beyond.
I didn't know that that was the way Forgotten Realms rolled. It was a bit of surprise to see Volo writing about it so clearly. I assumed it was a new thing but I guess not.
Quote from: Zalman;1055615That Paizo feels the need to mention gender in three different contexts tells me that these writers either have had a very different gaming experience from my own (and thus their game is less likely to appeal to me), or that they are simply inexperienced, and their design ideas have some other origin.
Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron was written by WotC, not Paizo. You can tell because the three races mentioned as having non-human gender norms are the new races originally introduced in Eberron. Paizo does not have the rights to those and has never written any clones of them even though it should be easy.
Quote from: Zalman;1055615That's certainly enough to make a point. One of the things that's become apparent to me over the years in all of my own gaming experiences is that gender is completely irrelevant. In 40+ years of gaming, none of our tables have played any scenario where gender matters in the remotest way. Not once.
(The "female characters are weaker" rule in 1e is one of the first things our group ignored, because ... we liked to play strong female characters.)
That Paizo feels the need to mention gender in three different contexts tells me that these writers either have had a very different gaming experience from my own (and thus their game is less likely to appeal to me), or that they are simply inexperienced, and their design ideas have some other origin.
My experience is the same. However, in the last decade or so I've noted adventures (especially Paizo and WotC adventure paths) include more romance and romantic backstories. I don't know if this is meeting some new market expectation, or if the writers today are just more interested love triangles, jealousy, etc. as adventure elements, or, more often, backstory that has no effect on the game. I don't really get it, but some people out there apparently feel it's important to know that the innkeeper who will feature in one scene is secretly in love with the barmaid, or that the head of the local thieves' guild's latest lover is hated by her previous one. I'd guess it's a combination of RPG adventures becoming fictional reading material along with the fantasy genre in general increasingly featuring romantic storylines as the demographics of readers change.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1055618Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron was written by WotC, not Paizo. You can tell because the three races mentioned as having non-human gender norms are the new races originally introduced in Eberron. Paizo does not have the rights to those and has never written any clones of them even though it should be easy.
Thanks for the correction!
Quote from: Haffrung;1055621My experience is the same. However, in the last decade or so I've noted adventures (especially Paizo and WotC adventure paths) include more romance and romantic backstories. I don't know if this is meeting some new market expectation, or if the writers today are just more interested love triangles, jealousy, etc. as adventure elements, or, more often, backstory that has no effect on the game. I don't really get it, but some people out there apparently feel it's important to know that the innkeeper who will feature in one scene is secretly in love with the barmaid, or that the head of the local thieves' guild's latest lover is hated by her previous one. I'd guess it's a combination of RPG adventures becoming fictional reading material along with the fantasy genre in general increasingly featuring romantic storylines as the demographics of readers change.
Interesting, I wonder as well, as you say, if this is actually something the gaming public cares about, or just the writers. And when I say "gaming public", here I mean people actually
purchasing the products. I am reminded of the excellent recent tweet by Clay Routledge:
QuoteWe are living in an era of woke capitalism in which companies pretend to care about social justice to sell products to people who pretend to hate capitalism.
Quote from: rgalex;1055598The only things I can find by doing a search of the pdf for the word "gender" are:
"Changelings have a fluid relationship with gender, seeing it as one characteristic to change among many others."
"A kalashtar mixes a personal prefix to the name of the quori spirit within the kalashtar. Each spirit has a gender identity, but this might not match the gender identity of the kalashtar host. A female kalashtar may have what others would consider a masculine name, because she's tied to a spirit with a masculine identity."
"The typpical warforged has a muscular, sexless body shape. Some warforged ignore the concept of gender entirely, while others adopt a gender identity in emulation of creatures around them."
If there is something other than those 3 references they don't use the word gender or are from an updated version of the document that I don't have.
Again, two of these races are not necessarily gendered whereas the kalashtar are often "fluid."
jg
Quote from: James Gillen;1055649Again, two of these races are not necessarily gendered whereas the kalashtar are often "fluid."
jg
Yeah those aren't what I remembered being upset about (fantasy races are expected to be different) but for the life of me I can't find what it was. Probably a brain fart and we can likely end this derail.
Quote from: S'mon;1055458I think Starfinder would be considered successful by normal RPG standards, but obviously is no D&D 5e.
I'm sure that if Starfinder had been written by some small-press publisher and had the sales it did, it would be a spectacular success.
But for Paizo? Not nearly enough to save them.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1055495Although depending on who you are, you can probably find some in the OSR who despise you, too. I'm pretty sure Zak S and the Pundit have no use for me and mine, for example. :)
I have no interest in your ideology. Unless you're an active and vocal Neo-Nazi or Terrorist or something like that, I don't want you out of the hobby, I don't want to force you to Publicly Declare your allegiance to mine, I just want you to enjoy gaming.
Quote from: James Gillen;1055649Again, two of these races are not necessarily gendered whereas the kalashtar are often "fluid."
jg
Why would quori even have genders, much less human genders? They originate from the plane of nightmares.
A sexless robot who only adopts gender to fit in with humanoid culture? A shape shifter who changes sex at will? A person who inherits the spirit of a demon from the land of nightmares? I really question how these things would quality as transgender representation. Trans
human representation perhaps, but the transgender community is too diverse for a one-size-fits-all solution. While it might fit those who do not identify clearly as male or female or who identify as the opposite gender to their sex, it does not fit those experiencing full-blown body dysphoria which is a physiological illness and legally classified as a disability in the United States.
It feels to me like the writers have only the most superficial idea of what being transgender really means. Their bias shows when they only ever mention male and female genders, when in a fantasy world those do not necessarily apply. For example, a species with three sexes* might have three distinct genders that evolved from a primordial fight/run/hide response.
*In biology, sex refers to the types of gametes produced (egg = female, sperm = male). A species with three sexes would logically require all three to reproduce. If a species only produces the same type of gamete (as in fungi, some algae and some microorganisms), then sexual compatibility is determined by "mating types" which work on similar (but logically opposite) principles to blood types transfusion.
This right here is a reason why it's best to stick with 1e AD&D and OD&D. They can't fuck up what they can't touch. They can't retroactively reach back and ruin
my D&D. Let 'em shit their own nests.
Oh, and for fun, this is straight outta the Fiend Folio:
Quote from: Don TurnbullThe English language has not yet bent to accomodate these alleged requirements of modern society,
and if the products are to be words like "himr" and "hisr" I devoutly hope it never will
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1055826This right here is a reason why it's best to stick with 1e AD&D and OD&D. They can't fuck up what they can't touch. They can't retroactively reach back and ruin my D&D. Let 'em shit their own nests.
I'd rather stick with 2E, BECMI and 4E (even in that one, the rot hadn't reached nearly so far), but I share the general sentiment. :)
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1055826This right here is a reason why it's best to stick with 1e AD&D and OD&D. They can't fuck up what they can't touch. They can't retroactively reach back and ruin my D&D. Let 'em shit their own nests.
Oh, and for fun, this is straight outta the Fiend Folio:
Hey, don't let the transtrenders give you a bad impression of non-binary as a concept in speculative fiction. I am currently working out the specifics of multiple fictional species with sex/gender norms that do not map to humanity, if only to take back the concept from the transtrenders.
Like, my current favorite idea (I did not invent it, I just read it in a serialized romance novel I am reading) is some aliens/beastfolk with 5~6 different types of male, everyone including females use masculine pronouns, and there was a paradigm shift in their culture so that in the past females were considered the most vicious whereas in the contemporary era the entire female population have been forced into sex slavery to birth more soldiers to feed their numerous galactic wars and the absolute best that unsullied young women can look forward to is becoming the personal sex slave of a high-ranking official. Basically your bog standard
The Handmaid's Tale of Gor style of dystopia.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;10558272E, BECMI and 4E
...
(http://wetpaint.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/mckayla-maroney-resting-bitch-face-750x522-1461694520.jpg)
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1055859Hey, d-
What in the hell are you going on about.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1055901...
(http://wetpaint.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/mckayla-maroney-resting-bitch-face-750x522-1461694520.jpg)
Accept that other people have different tastes than you and you'll be happier.
Also, different games work better for different things. I wouldn't use AD&D to run giant robot combat (and every d20-based giant robot game abjectly sucked) and I wouldn't use Battletech or Mekton Zeta (depending on your preferred flavor of giant robot combat) to run a fantasy dungeon delve.
4E is exceptional for a Big Damned Heroes type campaign, people who enjoy tactical combat scenarios (D&D Minis was HUGE in my area back in the day, more tables of that were being run than any tabletop D&D at the time) and for being able to run non-magical settings (ex. Robin Hood, Three Musketeers) without needing a ton of house-ruling to cover all the ways magic classes affected game progression (ex. The Three Musketeers needing to spend months regaining lost hit points via natural means vs. hit points are mostly endurance and morale so that charismatic badass PC who's good at keeping people motivated can restore the party's hit points).
Its less good at sandbox worlds/campaigns and for that I'd use a 1E or 2E (or the system I've built).
It all depends on what you're looking for in a particular campaign.
One of Pathfinder/3e's biggest flaws was training an entire generation of players that you can use the same set of mechanics to emulate any setting equally well and enough amateur designers who cared more about their 'one cool concept' or their campaign world than designing mechanics to actually fit that world they were creating jumped on the bandwagon because it looked like easy cash since they didn't have to do all that design work.
It was actually kinda amusing to watch the Arcanis crew (who at one point had 100 people LARPs and 200 player all-day mass combat "battle interactives" at both Origins and GenCon) struggle with designing their own system when 4E came out and they realized that to make the switch to the GSL they'd basically have to tank all their current books and didn't anticipate 3E having any legs at the time (Pathfinder was not the obvious contender to 4E it became back in 2007-8). They had not the slightest clue what they were doing with mechanics.
I still remember the day during their playtest phase when I posted the actual probabilities for their mechanic system. Their main numbers guy posted right afterwards on the public forum saying
"Yup, those look like the probabilities our internal number crunching gave us" and not one hour later I got a personal e-mail from the very same numbers guy asking if he could get a copy of my probability spreadsheets because they actually had NOT done any sort number crunching at all... in fact their difficulty calculations for tasks presumed that 2d10+1d8 had the exact same probability curve as 1d20+5 because they both had the same mean result of 15.5.
That massive change in how the mechanics made their world operate was one of the key factors that all but killed Arcanis (they're trying to make a comeback piggybacking on 5e this time, but I don't think they'll ever hit the glory days again). Their new mechanics didn't fit the world as it was described any more than using BattleTech's combat engine would have.
So yeah, 2e, BECMI and 4E makes as much sense as saying Battletech, Mekton Zeta and Jovian Chronicles. All three do 'giant robot combat' really well, but each supports particular styles of play much better than the others and which I'd pick to run a giant robot campaign would depend on the style I wanted for that campaign (ex. I wouldn't use Battletech to run a "Gundam Wing" style game, but would use it for a "Gundam 08th MS Team" style game).
Problem is. no matter how "inclusive" you are, how much bending over backwards you do. Its not going to garner you more sale. May lose you sales. and you likely will STILL be attacked for either not being inclusive "enough" or for it not being written by a transgender mutantbikercanniballibrarianclown who identifies as an attack helicopter.
Quote from: Chris24601;10559074E is exceptional for a Big Damned Heroes type campaign, people who enjoy tactical combat scenarios (D&D Minis was HUGE in my area back in the day, more tables of that were being run than any tabletop D&D at the time) and for being able to run non-magical settings (ex. Robin Hood, Three Musketeers) without needing a ton of house-ruling to cover all the ways magic classes affected game progression (ex. The Three Musketeers needing to spend months regaining lost hit points via natural means vs. hit points are mostly endurance and morale so that charismatic badass PC who's good at keeping people motivated can restore the party's hit points).
Its less good at sandbox worlds/campaigns and for that I'd use a 1E or 2E (or the system I've built).
I can attest to this since I've tried and failed several times to run 4e D&D sandbox campaigns. Its natural home seems to be a more reactive fantasy superhero team style where the Big Damn Heroes are called on to defeat a particular Growing Evil via lengthy tactical combat :) - my big 4e Loudwater campaign 2011-16 felt very 'Fantastic 4' at times.
5e D&D has been very good for sandboxing over the past 4 years. Only real issue was too-fast recovery, but going to 1 week long rest solved that completely.
1e/2e AD&D is good for sandboxing. Probably better than 0e-BX at the very start - pre-1e PCs are so weak that options are heavily constrained and staying alive means having a small army of followers who then become increasingly unncessary later on. This can be partially solved with a few tweaks like max hp at 1st level and death at -10. But you can do those in 1e too, plus with weapon spec and cleric bonus spells you get starting 1e PCs of close to Savage Worlds or d6 System level of competence. In my current OSRIC FR PBP game, the 1st level Rangers with 16 hp & weapon spec are more powerful than 5th level BX Fighters.
Quote from: S'mon;1055915I can attest to this since I've tried and failed several times to run 4e D&D sandbox campaigns. Its natural home seems to be a more reactive fantasy superhero team style where the Big Damn Heroes are called on to defeat a particular Growing Evil via lengthy tactical combat :) - my big 4e Loudwater campaign 2011-16 felt very 'Fantastic 4' at times.
Which just goes to show that not all campaigns are nails, so a single game system/hammer shouldn't be expected to solve all of them.
4E has it's place. Its just not one that many OSR fans go to particularly often. Doesn't make it bad; just specialized like a lathe (if you're into wood-turning its an indispensable piece of equipment, if you're not then its an expensive paperweight). If you ever wanted to try wood-turning you could try to cobble something together using a power drill, some clamps and some duct tape (i.e. some other game system), but a lathe (4E) will do it better and with much less fuss.
That said, if no single tool is right for the job, you also build your own. The system I've been developing for the past few years (and will have its own website up soon-ish) has been a case of combining the tactical combat elements I enjoy from 4E with a more sandbox style overall engine (flatter progression, no "end-of-encounter" style durations, no "wealth-by-level" assumptions, the ability to actually hire mercenaries if you want them to help you fight something, the "Diplomacy" skill functioning as a modifier to Reaction Rolls instead of mind control, etc.).
Instead of 'you can only use this maneuver once/encounter' (or 'recharges with a short rest' in 5e terms) you instead get a bonus the first time you use each maneuver against a foe who's never seen you use it before. You can repeat the maneuver whenever you want (maybe you want to save the 'surprise' bonus of a particular maneuver for a more opportune time), but you only get the bonus when you're using a new maneuver (relative to the opponents). The decision of when to employ a new maneuver to get the bonus (and which maneuvers you want to hold back on to employ at more opportune times) is part of the 4E-style tactical combat I want to encourage without needing to make specific combat maneuvers into "you can only try to trip an opponent 1/battle."
The end result is a 4E-style tactical combat in an otherwise sandbox world where it doesn't matter if you're level 1 or level 15, you still run from a hundred angry goblins unless you've set up an ambush for them first.
Quote from: Chris24601;1055907Accept that other people have different tastes than you and you'll be happier.
Also, different games work better for different things. I wouldn't use AD&D to run giant robot combat (and every d20-based giant robot game abjectly sucked) and I wouldn't use Battletech or Mekton Zeta (depending on your preferred flavor of giant robot combat) to run a fantasy dungeon delve.
4E is exceptional for a Big Damned Heroes type campaign, people who enjoy tactical combat scenarios (D&D Minis was HUGE in my area back in the day, more tables of that were being run than any tabletop D&D at the time) and for being able to run non-magical settings (ex. Robin Hood, Three Musketeers) without needing a ton of house-ruling to cover all the ways magic classes affected game progression (ex. The Three Musketeers needing to spend months regaining lost hit points via natural means vs. hit points are mostly endurance and morale so that charismatic badass PC who's good at keeping people motivated can restore the party's hit points).
Its less good at sandbox worlds/campaigns and for that I'd use a 1E or 2E (or the system I've built).
It all depends on what you're looking for in a particular campaign.
One of Pathfinder/3e's biggest flaws was training an entire generation of players that you can use the same set of mechanics to emulate any setting equally well and enough amateur designers who cared more about their 'one cool concept' or their campaign world than designing mechanics to actually fit that world they were creating jumped on the bandwagon because it looked like easy cash since they didn't have to do all that design work.
It was actually kinda amusing to watch the Arcanis crew (who at one point had 100 people LARPs and 200 player all-day mass combat "battle interactives" at both Origins and GenCon) struggle with designing their own system when 4E came out and they realized that to make the switch to the GSL they'd basically have to tank all their current books and didn't anticipate 3E having any legs at the time (Pathfinder was not the obvious contender to 4E it became back in 2007-8). They had not the slightest clue what they were doing with mechanics.
I still remember the day during their playtest phase when I posted the actual probabilities for their mechanic system. Their main numbers guy posted right afterwards on the public forum saying "Yup, those look like the probabilities our internal number crunching gave us" and not one hour later I got a personal e-mail from the very same numbers guy asking if he could get a copy of my probability spreadsheets because they actually had NOT done any sort number crunching at all... in fact their difficulty calculations for tasks presumed that 2d10+1d8 had the exact same probability curve as 1d20+5 because they both had the same mean result of 15.5.
That massive change in how the mechanics made their world operate was one of the key factors that all but killed Arcanis (they're trying to make a comeback piggybacking on 5e this time, but I don't think they'll ever hit the glory days again). Their new mechanics didn't fit the world as it was described any more than using BattleTech's combat engine would have.
So yeah, 2e, BECMI and 4E makes as much sense as saying Battletech, Mekton Zeta and Jovian Chronicles. All three do 'giant robot combat' really well, but each supports particular styles of play much better than the others and which I'd pick to run a giant robot campaign would depend on the style I wanted for that campaign (ex. I wouldn't use Battletech to run a "Gundam Wing" style game, but would use it for a "Gundam 08th MS Team" style game).
I'm a big fan of generics like Savage Worlds and GURPS.
Lots of times I find the generic system is better than the specific game for whatever you are trying to do. In theory, a custom system should always be better. In practice, few RPGs have good design so a generic with good design will automatically trump it. Generics tend to also survive longer in this D&D dominated market so they have time to actually refine their designs and make them better.
If D&D ever iterated on itself again, as opposed to just releasing whole new games and calling it an edition update, then they may improve vastly. 5e has a lot of room for improvement and I think could actually be quite good* with some rethinking.
*I think it's bad. I don't like 5e. I think every other edition of D&D is better, excluding only oD&D because I haven't personally read any RPG book from the 70s
Quote from: Chris24601;1055907Accept that other people have different tastes than you and you'll be happier.
That isn't how the world works. At least not these days.
jg
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1055859Hey, don't let the transtrenders give you a bad impression of non-binary as a concept in speculative fiction. I am currently working out the specifics of multiple fictional species with sex/gender norms that do not map to humanity, if only to take back the concept from the transtrenders.
Like, my current favorite idea (I did not invent it, I just read it in a serialized romance novel I am reading) is some aliens/beastfolk with 5~6 different types of male, everyone including females use masculine pronouns, and there was a paradigm shift in their culture so that in the past females were considered the most vicious whereas in the contemporary era the entire female population have been forced into sex slavery to birth more soldiers to feed their numerous galactic wars and the absolute best that unsullied young women can look forward to is becoming the personal sex slave of a high-ranking official. Basically your bog standard The Handmaid's Tale of Gor style of dystopia.
Oh man,
Bone Tomahawk portrayed a particularly horrific example of this attitude taken to the extreme.
And of course, the ultimate non-binary speculative fiction example is Le Guin's
The Left Hand of Darkness. Which you should definitely read if you haven't, given your current project.
I think a lot of it comes down to the sheer level of obnoxiousness it gets when it comes to presenting these woke sidebars. We've had these sorts of things in RPG's for fucking decades now, it's just always been presented in a more tasteful manner that didn't treat the reader like they were in danger of joining the Reich any moment without the sidebar to save them.
Deadlands for example always had a small sidebar that explained Racism and Prejudice may be historical, but in Deadlands it's the domain of Villains only, and thanks to the Supernatural changes to history women and minorities were allowed to do everything White men were.
I think it would be less of an issue if these warnings were simply, "Don't be a Dick. Racism, Sexism, and Prejudice shouldn't be present at your table...and should only be present in your game if your players are comfortable with it, and want to engage with it. Otherwise leave the real world baggage at the door, enjoy the game and be excellent to each other."
I remember playing in a homebrew pbem game "Majestic 12" where the PCs were government agents in 1950s America, investigating the paranormal with the aid of super-science. My PC got a bunch of extra build points for taking the disadvantages of being black and female.
So I was a bit surprised when we drove into a white Southern town on our first case, and the locals treated me just like everyone else. :D
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1055577Yeah, specifics are welcome.
With the Realms, it's arguably in keeping with what I've heard about Greenwood's original vision. :)
Yeah, pretty much. Lady Alustriel of Silverymoon's hottub orgies, Elminster in bed with the Seven Sisters simultaneously, polymorph shenanigans of all kinds, etc. Greenwood's home campaign is pretty much late 60's/early 70's excess. Think Studio 54/Hollywood parties/hippy free love powered by magic. Once Winter hits in the North and you can't adventure anywhere, the rich and beautiful people get down big time.
Quote from: S'mon;1056449I remember playing in a homebrew pbem game "Majestic 12" where the PCs were government agents in 1950s America, investigating the paranormal with the aid of super-science. My PC got a bunch of extra build points for taking the disadvantages of being black and female.
So I was a bit surprised when we drove into a white Southern town on our first case, and the locals treated me just like everyone else. :D
It's a mess for a GM.
On the one hand, when playing a historical setting, you want that immersion. On the other hand, it's not really fun to sit there and call the players a bunch of slurs, even if it's "in character". Fortunately, despite popular imaging, a black woman -could- actually walk around in the South without having members of the pro-am KKK follow her everywhere. So being treated like everyone else isn't entirely out of the realm of plausibility.
So yeah, as much as some people complain that PEG handwaved away all ugliness of the South in Deadlands and say they want the Confederates to be all racist and sexist and such... I don't think they really do.
Quote from: san dee jota;1056504Fortunately, despite popular imaging, a black woman -could- actually walk around in the South without having members of the pro-am KKK follow her everywhere. So being treated like everyone else isn't entirely out of the realm of plausibility.
I didn't expect to be lynched (& I know the Southern US well enough to know people are *very* polite, especially to women), but I thought I might face some difficulty being treated seriously as a government official by the local sheriff, rather than him treating me exactly like the white male agents. Of course we
were a bunch of Yankees, or at least DC Feds - he probably hated us all equally. :D
The GM was an east-Asian female BTW. I didn't really mind being treated the same as the guys, I just thought it odd she'd give me these extra points and they turn out to be freebies. I might have played a black female agent anyway - my character Elizabeth Washington was pretty cool, and I played a black female Fighter in a Midnight d20 game a few years later, which slightly annoyed the rather racist German GM (also female) when she found out. :)
Quote from: san dee jota;1056504So yeah, as much as some people complain that PEG handwaved away all ugliness of the South in Deadlands and say they want the Confederates to be all racist and sexist and such... I don't think they really do.
I don't either. I think they want to take such an opportunity to shout their wokeness at other people.
Pathfinder does not need a second edition