Pathfinder 1E Paizo Annoucement!

[Psion]

Um, can you encounter debaters make a new thread? This debate's been had a dozen times.

 

[xechnao]

I bet all of you here are better needed to join Pathfinder alpha and make good use of your experience regarding any problems of 3.5 you see. You will better help this way 3.5 to overcome these problems.

 

[Azzy]

By having fewer encounters, you increase the likelihood that certain classes will hog the spotlight, as noted below.

Depending on encounter type, situation, etc.

In the vast majority of cases, an encounter that eats resources will be a combat encounter. Certainly any encounter that eats a significant proportion of resources from the party as a whole will be a combat encounter. Your post is the non sequitur.

Your assessment is wrong on so many levels. If you're planning an encounter that supposed to equate to a certain EL, chances are you plan for that encounter to devourer the requisite resources. Otherwise, said encounter is going to be of a lower EL.

No. It has apparent wiggle room. However, if you try to use that room, you quickly get bitten.

Haven't yet.

You were the one going on before about having big bad fights at the end. Do make up your mind how you want to approach the adventure pacing issue.

Was I? Might I point out that I have also s been saying for quite a while that the 4E/D mechanic doesn't limit you to this approach. What I have said is that repetitive "kewl power" spamming where players blow their load in each encounter really kills the cinematic quality of the game.

You call it cheese. I call it the most obvious, self-evident use of a spell I've ever seen.

Yes, I call it cheese. A 2nd-level spell shouldn't be able to grant that kind of advantage.

This is because 4E does not tie class balance to adventure pacing. Everyone has (roughly) the same mix of at-will, per-encounter and per-day powers. You can have one big, stand-up fight where PCs kick butt and get kicked, and it will work. You can have half a dozen fights requiring moderate consumption of resources and it will work. There is no tradeoff required or any assumption to meet on fights per day.

Like I said, you have your preference, enjoy. I'm not asking you to stay with 3.5. What I would like is for you to stop with making false assumption about 3.x's ability to to provide good, solid, fun entertainment.

The point is that fun and interesting encounters in 3E happen in spite of the incentives built into the system, not because of it.

And this is the point that I roll my eyes again.

 

[Ingolf]

Well, considering the rules never inhibited my ability create "fun" and "interesting" encounters for my player, perhaps you're the one doing it wrong. Really, there's nothing in the encounter guidelines in the DMG that inhibit fun or interesting play.

There is also nothing in the DMG that makes it particularly easy to create fun and interesting encounters. Those of us who have been DMing for years have simply gotten used to the idea that the CR system doesn't work particularly well outside a certain level range and we adjust accordingly. It's difficult for us to see how steep that learning curve is because we've already climbed it. For a new DM it can be fairly daunting.

After all, isn't that part of the reason Pathfinder adventures are so popular? All that work is already done, and done well, by people who have experience working with the very flawed CR system to create balanced and challenging encounters.

 

[Azzy]

Um, can you encounter debaters make a new thread? This debate's been had a dozen times.

Sorry.

I bet all of you here are better needed to join Pathfinder alpha and make good use of your experience regarding any problems of 3.5 you see. You will better help this way 3.5 to overcome these problems.

Wow. Being told to go away then?

 

[Frozen DM]

Disagreed. Both White Wolf's WoD and SJG's GURPS, and to a lesser extent Hero's "Champions" all have a large degree of name recognition. Sure, D&D has the biggest, in that respect, but the others are no slouches, either. Of course, a decade ago I could have easily added another half dozen to that. *sigh*

Is this really true though? If we talk name recognition in more hardcore gamer circles, sure. But we also need to consider that a large part of the market might not be as industry-savy as the hardcore players. Example, my girlfriend role-plays regularly, is a fan of fantasy literature and total geek. But she wouldn't recognize any of those other games in the slightest.

And the Coke Pepsi comparison, do WoD, GURPS and Champions actually compete for the same market share as D&D? To continue the analogy, this is like comparing Coke to Sunny D, Crush and Brisk. All are drinks, but different kinds.

Personally I think Pathfinder will find it's niche. I think this will be a small niche, on par with games like True20 or Warhammer FRPG. But to compete against D&D? I don't think so. D&D has market penetration and name recognition beyond the typical gamer sub-culture. D&D is also the game with the greatest chance of acquiring new players from outside of the hobby. Pathfinder will quite possibly do very well in the short term, supporting Paizo's existing fans (those willing to convert away from 3.5) and possibly drawing fans who are not happy with the changes being made in 4E. But long term, it won't compete directly with D&D, just like True20 and Warhammer (which I use as examples as very well-designed and fun games I wish I played more of) don't compete.

My other concern is in the design side. I agree with many people that Paizo has a stable of some of the finest story-tellers and adventure-writers in the business. I've spend countless months playing through their previous adventure paths. But is anyone aware of what their design experience is like? Do they have the mathematical background to handle complex game design and analysis? Just something I wonder when trying to improve a game many people recognize as having many small, mechanical problems.

 

[Firevalkyrie]

Disagreed. Both White Wolf's WoD and SJG's GURPS, and to a lesser extent Hero's "Champions" all have a large degree of name recognition. Sure, D&D has the biggest, in that respect, but the others are no slouches, either. Of course, a decade ago I could have easily added another half dozen to that. *sigh*

I say this as somebody who loves WoD, has played Champs and has thought about playing GURPS at least once: None of these games have any significant recognition outside of the core of RPG hobbyists. Even among gamers, their name recognition is a scant fraction of D&D's (I should have mentioned World of Darkness, I think I omitted it because it doesn't directly compete with D&D). If you go into a bookstore (not a game store) and go to the RPG shelves, you will see a lot of D&D books, a few WoD books, and a scattering of non-D&D/non-WoD books. And so it goes with gaming's recognition. For better or for worse, role-playing games are Dungeons & Dragons to the world at large.

 

[xechnao]

Wow. Being told to go away then?

I just think it will be of a good use if you/we try to more practically exploit arguments and ideas regarding 3.5. Hey, anyone who is interested in doing so.

 

[Dimitris]

I think that the D&D is not like a standard consumer product. I mean that the way it is introduced is basically from a DM to his players, from players to the next generation of DMs etc. You have the experience of early campaigns, mature campaigns, good and bad campaigns. Think about it. Even if you don't want to admit it, RPG is a hobby game. At a certain level it gets depth and requires people with experience. A big company could want to get millions of new customers tomorrow but this don't respect the nature of the hobby game. A hobby game to flourish may need hobby companies and creative amateur individuals.

I suppose this is the reason of advertising the game as a mostly tabletop game. They are trying to encourage new players to buy it and try to play. Quite reasonable for a company who wants to expand its market. Millions are playing WoW. If WotC could capitalize to a small percent of them by offering something similar to try, they could expand the D&D base with fresh blood.

In my opinion D&D-flavor worlds could be served with the OGL rules. I don't think that the current players desperately need a new system. We will see. On the other hand I don't believe that a lot of people will come to the hobby just because they saw an advertisement.

The real capital of WotC is the FR, the Drizzt, the DL, the dark sun etc The irony is that they saw to us by changing the rules so drastically.

On the other hand, as mature hobby players, I think that what we need is companies to provide us new worlds, new Drizzts, new Raistlins, new grand stories and adventures to play and maybe adapted rules to express the feeling of these new worlds. We could only benefit from a standard system not owned by one company. If a new combat system is nice I may introduce it in my game, if I don't like it, I won't, etc

Dimitris

 

[hong]

Depending on encounter type, situation, etc.

Everything depends on encounter type, situation, etc. As a general principle, it nevertheless holds true.

Your assessment is wrong on so many levels. If you're planning an encounter that supposed to equate to a certain EL, chances are you plan for that encounter to devourer the requisite resources. Otherwise, said encounter is going to be of a lower EL.

I'm kind of struggling to visualise an encounter that eats 1/4 of resources that doesn't involve monsters wanting to eat your brane.

Come to think of it, what on earth does the combat/noncombat distinction have to do with anything? Unless you're saying that you have some encounters that specifically involve nothing but out-of-combat spellcasting, in which case you've effectively sidelined all the fighter-type classes.

Haven't yet.

Then you have very obliging players.

Was I? Might I point out that I have also s been saying for quite a while that the 4E/D mechanic doesn't limit you to this approach. What I have said is that repetitive "kewl power" spamming where players blow their load in each encounter really kills the cinematic quality of the game.

No it doesn't.

1. If everyone is blasting away at full capacity, then chances are it's against tough opposition, and the promulgation of violence and the threat of PC death/severe injury will be enough to ensure cinematic visuals.

2. In terms of between-encounter adventure pacing, ramping up of intensity is achieved by ramping up the opposition. This is just as easily done in 4E as in 3E, but with no unwanted side-effects vis-a-vis class balance or suffering through uninteresting fights at the start.

Yes, I call it cheese. A 2nd-level spell shouldn't be able to grant that kind of advantage.

It's in the game regardless. As are all those other ways to circumvent the paradigm. I guess you could ban them all, but as said, the logical solution is to change the paradigm.

Like I said, you have your preference, enjoy. I'm not asking you to stay with 3.5. What I would like is for you to stop with making false assumption about 3.x's ability to to provide good, solid, fun entertainment.

If you have good, solid, fun entertainment, then you are doing it in spite of the incentives built into the system.