What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[Neonchameleon]

Bullrush is push people using strenght. You can fluff it in thousand ways. Jump and push with your feet, headlong rush, take and launch back (even if this is more like grapple), strike with the top of your axe on the face and then use a strike with your shoulders... and with PF CMB vs CMD, yeah, is actually how high you roll.

"You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack.". It requires me to build up a head of steam or stop trying to slice them open in order to push someone. That is the opposite approach to the one of crowding the enemy and taking their position and unbalancing them by being right up there in their face that Tide of Iron represents in this case.

Bull Rush is a maneuver I have chosen to do instead of trying to cut someone open. Tide of Iron is how I fight reflexively and doesn't hinder my trying to eviscerate someone.

I don't see what's the problem with this feat... I don't understand what you mean here.

I have no problem with the feat. If I had a problem with OTT cinematic martial arts I wouldn't play 4e. It just doesn't do the job. I can get the big flourishes in 3e - but 4e gives me small ones of the sort that add richness.

Shield proficency, fighter already has it. So TWO feats.

Point.

As I said, I can understand the BAB that one can consider too high.. but remember that is an additional control given to one dude that is beating you. If a PF fighter starts to beat you, you are not "marked". You are gonna die.

You probably are in 4e as well. The marking just means that running or finding a new opponent means you die faster.

Come and Get it Strengt vs AC (??)

Was fluff first and bad mechanical implementation IMO.

Exorcism of Steel. You complain about Shield Slam by level 6? Here we have a disarm by level 17 (but this is on the same weirdness of Sand in the Eyes)!!

Again, that's fluff first and weaker mechanical resolution. Disarm shouldn't be in 4e other than as explanatory fluff from PCs and a very rare power.

Blinding barrage (why don't stab them directly in the eyes, you you are so accurate?). IMO, they simply decided that Rogue needed a blinding power, and then fluffed it.

Why? I wouldn't have done it that way if I'd wanted one. (Bad joke is how I'd have described it).

IME, Whishes are not necessarily plot devices. they can be unexpected tricks, surprises, gift or disaters both for PCs and DM. And I would decide by myself if use or not to use an Efreeti, instead to recurr to DM-fiat and to a monster that iss redundant with a devil or a fire giant (has horns and kills me with fire).

You've just defined a minor plot device. Edit: In a number of RPGs I'd just call it plot points and have done.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Here there are two things sharing terminology.

Agreed.

I am not at all a fan of "fudging to keep PCs alive". I have no problem with PCs dying, either as a player or a GM. Obviously, YMMV. Moreover, the more effort it requires to create a PC, the harder it is to make another....

Eliminating crime is an excercise in futility unless you shoot everyone or make everything legal. This doesn't mean I don't want a good legal system or police force. There's merit in the goal.

Only if this sort of fudging is analogous to crime (i.e., something undesired in the first place). If you are of the same mind as I am (that this sort of creative adaptation of the rules is what makes a role-playing game function), it would read more like: "Eliminating legitimacy is an excercise in futility unless you make everything illegal."

I agree with this, I wish there was more consequence to combat, but as you say, not edition specific. I may have to take a look at your rules then.

Please wait until revisions are done, and a pdf with Table of Contents, Index, and Bookmarks becomes available later this year. You'll be happy you waited.

EDIT: In the meantime, you can throw a little RCFG into your 4e, thanks to this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/249639-yoink-rcfg.html .


RC

 

[billd91]

Here's something interesting. Those libraries don't seem to be available on Marvel's own site. Only through Amazon (and, I guess, other retailers). If you go to Marvel itself, they're offering their Digital Unlimited (which includes those libraries, and a whole lot more). The iPad app gives access to... it looks like 10% of the total library.

Interesting business decisions, there...

It's not that interesting. I can get those DVD-ROMs at my local comic store like all the other books and comics I can't get on Marvel's site. It's simple enough. The Marvel.com site focuses on licensed merchandise and direct subscriptions but Marvel's comics and trade paperbacks are distributed in the traditional way. I know distributors (and probably game stores) who wish Paizo would follow in the same model as a publisher.

 

[BryonD]

It is also an exercise in futility, unless you sharply limit what can be done within the system.

Obviously, I agree with you in principle. But, honestly, I don't think there is any action a PC or NPC can take in 3E that the same PC or NPC can not take in 4E.

"What can be done" isn't really the issue. It is more about how the system models these things and whether "imagining what could exist and ... assign the mechanics that make that feel realistic " or "good, compelling mechanics that fit into the team work aspect of gaming" should be the controlling factor in building that model.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'll confess ignorance. Could you link me to these sales figures you're talking about? I'm unaware of WotC releasing any comprehensive data like that.

There was a poster here who used to post Amazon (and other sources) sales figures on a regular basis- essentially, 4Ed books equalled or exceeded their 3.5 counterparts in comparative sales windows.

Or as ByronD put it, it sold a ton.

 

[billd91]

Edit: Eh, whatever.

 

[BryonD]

On the other hand, any good system should strive to minimise the amount of fudging you actually need. Or quite intentionally make it very open (as the 4e skill/skill challenge system does)

That sounds fine, but only in a vacuum, as you have placed it.

Again, we agree there will never be a perfect RPG. The perfect RPG for me would never require fudging.

But, any good system should strive to create as accurate a model as possible. And, to me, this is far more important than the presence or absence of fudging.

And yet, to me the core problem with CAGI is that it was a power someone worked out and thought cool (which it is) and the mechanics of the implementation lag behind the goal. (I'd have done Close Burst 3, Str+2 vs Will, Hit: Target must move their speed, moving closer to you each square by the easiest path until they come adjacent. Secondary attack: Str (+ Weapon) vs AC.

Fair enough, to me CAGI isn't the point itself, it was just the example that drives to the point. The defense of CAGI has been that the player should roleplay in a manner that fits the mechanics, not the other way around. And that applies much more broadly to the design philosophy of 4E in general. And this aspect has been trumpeted as a great thing about 4E by its fans. So fine, it is fun and does exactly as intended. But it remains a difference.

And me - but a good system facilitates good RP to me and makes me feel more like my character. A clunky system with a lot of looking up (e.g. Rolemaster: Tables Lore) or mechanics that make competent characters incompetent (e.g. Serenity) throws me out. The kinaesthetic nature of 4e helps draw me in.

Again, roleplay on top of any system is not the question. The question is: how well does the system model the roleplay?

I don't play RM or Serenity, so no comment there. But I've been running 3E for a decade now. Your concerns listed don't apply, so they don't add to this conversation.

And the existance of page 42 reduces the amount of fudging required - I'm not making it all up, instead I've got guidelines and a framework. Like a police force it's never going to be perfect but a fair attempt is a very good thing.

If you realize that I don't think a set of books could ever capture everything I need, you can probably easily imagine how I feel about trying to achieve that in a page.

 

[Shazman]

I agree with this, I wish there was more consequence to combat, but as you say, not edition specific. I may have to take a look at your rules then.



Actually, having gods smite people makes no sense in any context, nor does casting magic missile, or divine healing, or 99% of D&D. If you have no problem with a wizard stopping the very fabric of time (Time Stop) I fail to see how it's that different.

Ok, so you can't hear the warlord physically, maybe the spirit of the warrior has yet to enter death's door, the light is inviting and so warm, but suddenly there's a pull from somewhere else, a familiar voice cuts through the darkness and reminds the fallen hero that there's unfinished business. Somehow, this hero pulls away from the light and returns to his body, ready to continue his quest.

Very little in D&D is actually "acting like flesh and blood" that's for far grittier systems. There's no real-world physics in any edition of D&D, fireball doesn't light anything on fire? Really? How does that make sense?

Yes, a lot of things in D&D are not realistic, but they make sense in context of how things in the D&D universe are supposed to work. A lot of things introduced in 4E are not only not realistic, but are completely disconnected from how things are supposed to work in D&D. I believe the term for this is versimalitude, and it is something that I find almost completely lacking in 4E. It is, however, something that I and many others expect from my RPG of choice because it enhances suspension of disbelief and thus enjoyment of the game. It's hard to be immersed in a game when everytime you try to really get into it, you get smacked in the face by something so unabashedly gamist that it completely jolts you out of your suspension of disbelief. This is one my criticisms against 4E.

 

[Umbran]

Generating a few years (or even a decade) of loyalty from a customer does not, to me, equate to a "long-term" customer pool. Perhaps our definitions are different

I expect our definitions are different. In my mind, "long term" is a relative thing.

For example, take the comic book trade. I'm told by folks in the trade that the expected term for a comic book customer is a couple of years. You get into them in junior high or high school, read and buy frantically for a couple of years, and then stop. There's some variation in that pattern, and certainly a long tail of die-hard fans that are useful to the trade, but the bulk of the actual sales of comics are to these short-timers. An ever-revolving door, which is why comics repeat origin stories and exposit the history so often. For comics, a long-term customer is anyone sticking around much longer a couple of years.

So, what's the typical retention time for a gamer as a customer? Not just how long to they continue to play in general, or how long they play a particular game, but how long do they continue to buy products for a particular system? I would not be surprised if, in general, a given player is saturated after only a couple of years, and purchases will drop precipitously. Once you've got an entire shelf full of stuff, you probably don't need more to continue playing that game indefinitely.

In this scheme, a 10-year customer would be long-term, just as it would be for comics.

Ten years also seems to be about the lifespan of an edition, interestingly enough....

 

[BryonD]

IThere's no real-world physics in any edition of D&D, fireball doesn't light anything on fire? Really? How does that make sense?

3E PH: Fireball: The fireball sets fire to combustibles...

PF Core: Fireball: The fireball sets fire to combustibles...

Just fyi