Pathfinder 1E Elephant in the room/thread Forked Thread: Pathfinder - sell me

[Dannager]

Because you know "teh troof"! And anyone who disagrees with you is irrational! Of course!

Look, I can disagree with you, but I'm not so naive or arrogant as to believe that everyone who disagrees with me is failing to listen to reason. That's just ridiculous. Maybe you should consider that you may be no infallible bastion of reason yourself.

When enough people agree that you're probably not willing to listen to reason, it's time to take a good hard look at yourself and wonder if, perhaps, they might have a point.

 

[rounser]

When enough people agree that you're probably not willing to listen to reason, it's time to take a good hard look at yourself and wonder if, perhaps, they might have a point.

That's true. In this case I think they have vested interests that colour their own beliefs too much, though. There are people prepared to put unlimited spin on anything that will defend 4E, or prove it's superiority over alternatives, and I've noted who they are.

 

[Dannager]

Because they don't impinge on the independence of other characters and their status as peers rather than subordinates, nor the central conceit of the adventuring party as a group of heroes rather than a hierarchy of soldiers taking orders. The nearest thing to an argument you have there is "pick pockets" with the rogue, but any character can steal from or kill others. The warlord's powers imply compliance with their orders implicitly.

No, they don't. You are taking a completely inflexible view of how Warlords are "supposed" to work based on nothing but an initial impression, and then having the gall to argue before an entire group of people who have seen Warlords in extensive play that they work the way you think they do and don't work the way that people who have seen them in play think they work.

For instance, I can imagine a mousy halfling Warlord whose shtick is to wrack his brain with intense battlefield calculations mid-fight (while fending off his own opponents, of course), analyzing enemy weaknesses and openings with calculator-like intensity, who then suggests tactics on the fly to his companions in a laughably scientific manner. This is nothing like the Warlord you are convinced must be implied by the rules, and yet it falls completely in line with the rules of the class.

 

[Dannager]

That's true. In this case I think they have vested interests that colour their own beliefs too much, though. There are people prepared to put unlimited spin on anything that will defend 4E, or prove it's superiority over alternatives, and I've noted who they are.

You're projecting, plain and simple.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Guys, it is useless to talk about Dragonborn or Warlords with rounser. Just stop reacting to it. It is a red rag to him, and to keep the discussion in any way reasonable/rational and productive, it's best to ignore anything he says about either. rounser should best pretend neither Dragonborn or Warlord exist, and the rest of us should pretend he never talks about them.

 

[James Jacobs]

The goblin example you bring up is a good point. Goblins in Golarion are a departure from the typical fantasy envisioning of the creatures, and they don't match the 4th Edition depiction of goblins. If you call them Golarion goblins, though, or Varisian goblins, or anything else that adds a new sub-element to the "goblin" classification, you can change that element to whatever you need it to be in your product, by simply making it clear that "These goblins are not the same as the goblins presented in core D&D products."

Call it professional pride or stubborness, but I'm more comfortable calling our goblins "goblins." There's no reason, in game, for a Varisian to call them "Varisian goblins" or "Golarion Goblins," any more than there is for us earthlings to call bears "Earth Bears" or raccoons "Seattle Raccoons." That's just silly, in my mind. And as for "departures from typical fantasy envisioning of creatures," the changes that 4th edition made to a lot of typical fantasy creatures (changes that can't be changed back if you use the GSL) only aggravate the problem.

In any case, I'm not really that interested in hearing an official take on the GSL in this manner, since A) we're not backpedaling now that the PF RPG has shipped to the printer, and B) since the GSL can be changed at any point in the future by anyone who happens to come along in the future (Scott Rouse won't be at WotC forever), it doesn't really MATTER what it can and won't allow, since the fundamentals of the GSL can change.

Plus, I'm proud enough of Pathfinder to think it's better anyway!

 

[rounser]

You're projecting, plain and simple.

Then how could I predict exactly who I'd end up arguing with? The usual suspects, falling back on the usual tactics.

 

[Dannager]

Call it professional pride or stubborness, but I'm more comfortable calling our goblins "goblins." There's no reason, in game, for a Varisian to call them "Varisian goblins" or "Golarion Goblins," any more than there is for us earthlings to call bears "Earth Bears" or raccoons "Seattle Raccoons." That's just silly, in my mind. And as for "departures from typical fantasy envisioning of creatures," the changes that 4th edition made to a lot of typical fantasy creatures (changes that can't be changed back if you use the GSL) only aggravate the problem.

Your Varisian natives wouldn't call them "Varisian goblins." They'd just call them "goblins." Because they'd be goblins. They'd just be a clearly specific subset of goblins whose definition you extended somewhere in your material - probably in an out-of-character portion (like the prologue, adventure development or bestiary). You wouldn't see a change in dialogue or even thought in your characters as a result of this - again, all you're really doing is making it clear in your licensed material that you are using licensed terms under extended definitions.

I agree, it'd be totally silly to have Shalelu referring to them as "Golarion goblins," but thankfully this, again, isn't something that the GSL would (as I understand it) require of you.

And yes, I understand where Paizo's future lies. My attempts to address this are more aimed at others who might be reading and wondering about the restrictiveness of the GSL.

 

[Dannager]

Then how could I predict exactly who I'd end up arguing with? The usual suspects, falling back on the usual tactics.

Because you've engaged them before, and the same circumstances developed then. That doesn't change anything. It's pretty clear, for instance, that Mustrum_Ridcully was unsurprised by your "tactics".

 

[rounser]

who then suggests tactics on the fly to his companions in a laughably scientific manner. This is nothing like the Warlord you are convinced must be implied by the rules,

It's exactly how I accept they are - armchair expert's on other's specialist areas, handing out commands! And that's codified into the powers. No matter what passive spin you put on it, that's what this class is.