View Profile: Ted Serious - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
No Recent Activity
About Ted Serious

Basic Information

About Ted Serious
Introduction:
Yes, I'm serious
About Me:
Dropping in from other Fora after a long absence, old account doesn't seem to work
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
64
Posts Per Day
0.38
Last Post
The roots of 4e exposed? Wednesday, 25th July, 2018 02:34 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
0
General Information
Last Activity
Wednesday, 25th July, 2018 02:43 AM
Join Date
Tuesday, 26th June, 2018
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
No results to show...

Thursday, 28th June, 2018

  • 02:28 PM - Manbearcat mentioned Ted Serious in post What is the essence of 4E?
    Ted Serious Thank you for the response, but perhaps the thrust of my post wasn’t clear (as your response doesn’t hook into it). I was commenting on the curiosity of the non-universal application of the “don’t piss off your traditionalist base” axiom. 4e was routinely decried for its violation of it (we constantly heard the “New Coke” cautionary tale). Meanwhile, The Last Jedi (which carries the same “zeitgeist DNA as D&D) at least equally violated the axiom, yet some/many (who lambasted 4e for its violation of the axiom) lauded it for “subverting expectations.” My takeaway is that invocations of “don’t piss off your traditionalists/base” can’t possibly be the lesson to be learned. More like “do stuff I like or I’m going to be angry and wrap my anger up in justification that falls apart under scrutiny.”

No results to display...
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Monday, 30th July, 2018

  • 09:17 PM - qstor quoted Ted Serious in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    Pathfinder 2 is still taking shape. It seems truer to the direction D&D was going than 4e was. I have friends that say 4e is an interesting and fun game. But it's NOT D&D. Thanks for posting the article. I have to agree that 4th killed too many "scared cows" for me.

Wednesday, 25th July, 2018

  • 03:37 PM - Kobold Boots quoted Ted Serious in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    Paizo won’t drive their fans away. 4e did. Pathfinder 2 won't. Paizo has learned from wizards mistakes. Paizo is entirely capable of finding their way to making their own mistakes independently of WoTC. I can see where PF2 could go too far for even the 3X diehards but I'm waiting to see the content before I make an opinion or decision beyond not playtesting actively with my group. Their current market position was the result of capturing lightning in a bottle and being in the right place at the right time, enabled by WoTC's poor business strategy and lack of ruthlessness. (Personally, I would have stepped on their throat and that would have been the end of them. Not personal, but business isn't slap and tickle. It's killshots) Given what they've accomplished though, I admire the firm. Their quality sets the tone for the industry and we're better off as gamers for having them around.
  • 03:32 PM - Kobold Boots quoted Ted Serious in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    4e did drive fans away. Paizo was there for them. Her point was that WoTC did not intentionally drive people away.
  • 02:13 PM - houser2112 quoted Ted Serious in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    Paizo won’t drive their fans away. 4e did. Pathfinder 2 won't. Paizo has learned from wizards mistakes. By releasing Pathfinder 2 and discontinuing support for PF1, they WILL split their base at least a little. It's impossible to get everyone to follow you. I don't foresee a rift as great as the one caused by 4E, but there will be stragglers. It remains to be seen if releasing PF2 was a mistake, but at least Paizo isn't making the mistake of deriding their own previous product and the customers who like it in the process.
  • 04:53 AM - Lanefan quoted Ted Serious in post A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
    Which edition do you actually play? Modified 1e now. 3e in the past. Which edition do I own? All of 'em except 3.5. I don't understand how 3e making the game good enough that you didn't have to house rule it is damage. The damage is that the trend - started with 3e and continued through 4e - of seeing house rules as a bad thing is, in my view, damaging to the game. One of the foundational tenets of early-era games (not just D&D) boiled down to "here's the framework, now do what you have to do to make the game your own"...which means anyone willing to do some lifting ended up with the game s/he wanted to run. 5e has gone back to that, but is now fighting this misguided perception that houserules are a bad thing. Most house rules are bad. A misguided perception you, unfortunately, seem to share. Professionals make better rules than amateurs. That's up for debate. The only difference between a pro and an amateur is the pro gets paid to do it while an amateur does it for the sheer jo...
  • 03:07 AM - Charlaquin quoted Ted Serious in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    Paizo won’t drive their fans away. 4e did. Pathfinder 2 won't. Paizo has learned from wizards mistakes. Which is a very different assertion than, Pathfinder 2 is nothing like 4e. It does not want to drive its fans away. Still not one I agree with, but not one I feel like arguing with.
  • 02:48 AM - Shasarak quoted Ted Serious in post A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
    The TSR period sounds like the 60s or Episode IV or the golden age of comics or Nirvana. It's only great if you were there for it. You mean it was only great when you remember it 20 years later after you have forgotten all the bad bits? =;O) Makes me feel all nostalgic for nostalgia.
  • 02:15 AM - Charlaquin quoted Ted Serious in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    4e did drive fans away. Paizo was there for them. And again, WotC didn’t try to drive their fans away, which is the way you claimed PF2 was unlike 4e. Since neither company tried to drive their fans away, your assertion is false. Not trying to drive their fans away is, in fact, a way in which they are similar. If you had said, “Paizo has not driven their fans away” or, “Paizo won’t drive their fans away,” we’d be having a very different discussion.

Tuesday, 24th July, 2018

  • 02:57 AM - Charlaquin quoted Ted Serious in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    Paizo has Wizards terrible mistakes to learn from. But, again, trying to drive their fans away is not a thing either company did, and therefore not a way in which PF2 is unlike 4e.
  • 02:45 AM - Elfcrusher quoted Ted Serious in post A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
    I've never known DMs to go begging for players. Even DMs everyone knows are bad. Playing is just so much easier and more fun. You have 20 wanting to play for every one actually wanting to run. Really? I've known (and/or known of) a couple of DMs who eventually find themselves with few or zero regulars at their tables. Just the newcomers who don't know better, or the equally problematic players who aren't welcome at the other tables. I guess it depends on your geography, though. I've only seen it in areas with pretty vibrant gaming communities.

Wednesday, 18th July, 2018

  • 03:02 AM - Charlaquin quoted Ted Serious in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    Obviously. But they succeeded. They were trying so hard for new MMO fans they drove away the D&D fans they had. But then “not trying to drive their fans away” is not a point of distinction between them. If WotC was able to drive fans away without trying to, so might Paizo.
  • 02:26 AM - Charlaquin quoted Ted Serious in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    Yes. They drove their fans away. Paizo does not want to do that with Pathfinder 2. They will not make the mistakes WotC did with 4e. You said "Paizo isn't trying to drive their fans away." WotC didn't try to drive their fans away with 4e either.

Monday, 16th July, 2018


Friday, 13th July, 2018

  • 07:09 PM - Aldarc quoted Ted Serious in post A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
    Vancian pre-memorization isn't really meta in and of itself; one can if one wants quite easily justify it within a setting as being how magic functions - you have to prepare the spells now that you're going to unleash later.Part of the issue is that the entire vancian magic system works in the meta economy of spell slots and levels where you can cast X number of times per day. I don't mind Vancian slots - way better than spell points, and I've used both - but I've come to detest Vancian pre-memorization in any form.I usually prefer magic as "skill" rolls/checks (e.g., Blue Rose, True20). Keep casting until you fatigue yourself. This would also be fantastic for a fail-forward or success-with-a-cost subsystem. So the caster could "fail" the ability check for the casting roll, but then force themselves to cast it no matter the cost to themselves because of its necessity to the mission. How is it metagame for the PC wizard to say to his companions, "We are about to set foot into the Mountain...
  • 06:31 PM - Charlaquin quoted Ted Serious in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    That's unlikely. 3e fans turned to Pathfinder, because it was essentially 3e. Pathfinder 2 is being billed as similar, even compatible with Pathfinder, which means that it is not essentially 4e, so it's not really something that 4e fans would turn to. More likely they will just go to a new system altogether or continue playing 4e. While there may be a lot of ideas from 4E going into PF2, I don't think its enough to make a 4E fan give up that edition. PF2 lacks AEDU, which I see as the mechanic that defines 4E, the reason to play or not play that game. I am a 4e fan seriously considering turning to PF2, so it can’t be that remote a possibility. Even if it’s not a 4e clone, it has a lot of elements of 4e that I love, along with some new ideas that I like such as the 3-Action economy and Bulk. And one very important thing that 4e doesn’t have - active support. AEDU isn’t really that core to 4e’s identity to me. PF2 already adopted the part of AEDU I liked the most, which was the clear, concise, ...
  • 05:48 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Ted Serious in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    4e failed for want of fans. Even if they all feel spurned by 5e that would be a bad market to sell too. 4e failed to hit a revenue goal set by Hasbro that even the entire industry, today, would still be failing to meet. While there may be a lot of ideas from 4E going into PF2, I don't think its enough to make a 4E fan give up that edition. PF2 lacks AEDU, which I see as the mechanic that defines 4E, the reason to play or not play that game. OTOH, total lack of support for the last 6 years goes a fair way towards getting you to give up an edition. And AEDU isn't so much the core/essence of 4e, as the consistency with which it was applied. It could have been AED or ADU or LMNOP, or , IDK, everyone getting feats like a 3.0 fighter and all you abilities coming from them... ...hey, that last is maybe just a bit like PF2, afterall. ;)

Thursday, 12th July, 2018

  • 08:34 PM - Henry quoted Ted Serious in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    Pathfinder 2 is still taking shape. It seems truer to the direction D&D was going than 4e was. It would have been less controversial and done better. 5e would not have been needed. What a difference ten years makes. So many of the changes that 4e made have similarities in changes to PF2 (skill ranks by level instead of points; attacks, AC, and saves driven by level instead of charts; much tighter math for both PCs and monster creation rules) as have some ideas that we saw in 5e (such as a version of the "Groovian" magic system) . A large number of Pathfinder players are pretty happy with these changes (I'm not going to say "most", because I can't say with certainty). O do know that in addition to a lot of people online, that my home group is pretty stoked about all they've read so far. I think it proved, if anything, that a lot of people just weren't ready for a change back then, and the way the change was handled was more of the problem than the changes themselves.

Monday, 9th July, 2018

  • 06:15 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted Ted Serious in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    You're saying 4e was far ahead of its time. I'm saying it was an aberration. If some future edition is just like 4e, we'll know you're right. No new edition will be 'just like 4e' but one could go FAR BEYOND 4e in the directions it took, which would be incredibly awesome in my book. In fact, that is probably the only game WotC could publish at this time which would get me to pay money for it.

Sunday, 8th July, 2018

  • 09:50 PM - Emerikol quoted Ted Serious in post A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
    You said 3.5 did not suffer from this class of mechanics that cannot be named. With Pathfinder 3.5 has had the longest publication history. The most books published. The most support of any Pencil & Paper RPG ever. If it works for you, you need nothing else. Pathfinder 2 should work for you also. The only complaint with 5e is Hit Dice, Inspiration, and a couple fighter things. You're the DM, you can just get rid of them. You don't need any help or advice to figure that out. So why are you posting this at all. When you also complain you've done so many times before. And that you were attacked for it. It sounds like that's what you want. To be attacked. You have everything you say you want from a game. Always have. Do you just need to be attacked for it. To stop feeling guilty for all that privilege. I was mostly wanting to discuss specific approaches. Bawylie's post above on his solution to the problem would be the sort of post that is helpful to the conversati...

Saturday, 7th July, 2018

  • 11:53 PM - AbdulAlhazred quoted Ted Serious in post Resonance, Potency, & Potions: A Look At Magic Items in Pathfinder 2
    Worst except for all the others could imply just as bad. Or unacceptable in other ways. 1e and 2e were just primitive. 5e tries too hard to be like them. 4e is not enough like them. 3.5 is still where D&D left off. Pathfinder is still carrying on from there. I disagree that AD&D's solution is 'primitive'. I think it could be tweaked slightly but it did work quite well. Items had a 'sale value', but since it was impossible to make most items this was really a SALE value, which is basically quite high, but something like what a player might actually agree to part with an item for. Purchase of items is left more as an exercise, but in practice the sums quoted in the 1e DMG are large enough that the most likely scenario is barter, trading one item for another. Items are VERY difficult to make. This precludes magic item manufacture as either a business proposition, or as a way to achieving some huge stockpile of items. Some things are notable: Scrolls are not cheap, but PCs can pen spell scroll...


Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Ted Serious's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites