Pathfinder 1E Paizo Annoucement!

Morrick said:
Most 3.5 enthusiasts don't have an issue with 4E. They have an issue with WotC.

You're not speaking for me, my group, or most "3.5 diehards" I associate with. Most of us are some mix of disappointed with 4e or just don't see the point of moving on to a new edition.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Psion said:
You're not speaking for me, my group, or most "3.5 diehards" I associate with. Most of us are some mix of disappointed with 4e or just don't see the point of moving on to a new edition.
Seconded
 

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
The board game might (and I am only saying _might_) be required if you enter combat. That would be the board game part. But there is a lot of stuff in the book that is not related to combat or the board-game aspects of combat. You don't need non-combat-board related skills, and certainly not skill challenges. You don't need a quest mechanic.

And as long as people claim that D&D 4E (or any other edition or any other game) is a board game just because one aspect of the game is related to the board, their opinion is dismissed. D&D is more a dice game then a board game, because basically everything that happens based on the mechanics is based on rolling some dice. Even the non-combat stuff.


I wager to say it's more then 15 pages. Their is a lot of core aspects in the 4E mechanics that if you can't reprint them, you can't have a full game. What's a slide vs a push vs a pull vs a shift vs a move? What means extended rest? What are healing surges? What's Second Wind? What can I do with the Thievery skill, or Bluff? What actions can people take? What's a round?
If you remove these from the PHB, nobody will be able to understand the majority of the rules. Look at your 3.x core rulebooks. Try to imagine a book that is reduced to the classes and, feats and skills. Without the combat chapter, without the explaination on feats, without the explaination on what skills are, what skill points are, how you distribute them. No XP Table. Could that be a complete game for someone that has never seen the PHB?

I think while what you are saying here it might sound logical, IMO it is in practice such a stretch that is not a valid argument.

Morrus said:
An update on the 4E PHB from Dangergirl! and Xath:
[bq]Chris Perkins and Sara Girard revealed several awesome tidbits about the Player's Handbook during a conversation with Xath and me this afternoon.

The book will be 320 pages with a basic format that includes:

(1) Getting Started
(2) Races
(3) Classes*
(4) Skills
(5) Feats
(6) Adventuring
(7) Equipment (which will include magic items – they're no longer in the DMG)
(8) Combat
(9) Rituals​

*There won't be a spells and powers chapter. Instead, the class power suite will be located *with* the class.[/bq]

Besides:

PCs are adventurers. Every class is developed on this class template but focused on its path in the world.
Common adventurer powers: second wind (explained), healing surge (explained), etch.
See? Problem solved.
 
Last edited:

Mouseferatu said:
Nonsense. It's an RPG with a tactical combat system. The "it's a boardgame" comment is getting old--especially since I've yet to see it come from anyone who's actually seen the whole rules set and given it a fair shake.

I think it is a fair assessment. Everyone I know came back from D&DXP used similar language. They also used boardgame and MMO to describe the rules set. They really liked the game, but this is how they described it.

IMO, some rules by their nature are conductive to roleplaying. They stimulate the imagination and help to set you in a specific mood. 4e does not seem to be such a set. By all accounts, it is fun to play and the combat is great, but when asked to describe it, people seem to search for examples of games that play like a boardgame, TCG, or MMO.

IMO, there is a huge subset of D&D players who enjoy simple combat as a means to an end. They do not need a lot of flashy options. I have always maintained that a basic D&D game built to allow advanced options would be great for the hobby. 4e is not such a game.

So I am not going to say that you cannot roleplay using the 4e rules. I do not think that the rules facilitate it or set it up well. Players get a lot more rolls and decisions to make, but it seems to be designed as a game first. I would say that it is an rpG. People can rp if they want, but it has been designed to enhance and promote gameplay rather than roleplay.

I am not saying that this does not serve a HUGE D&D population, but 4e does not serve as many of the D&D population as it once did because I think it now promotes a specific style of play and game.

So I do not think that "boardgame" is a tired description. I think people who legitimately enjoy the game have searched for ways to describe it because it is that different from what many people have been used too.

Personally, Paizo's announcement will mean that I continue playing D&D rather than move to a new system or drop out of the hobby altogether. I had been considering those options. I think this is a net win for WOTC and D&D players. It means that a percentage of people who may have left D&D entirely will be retained, which means that those people will continue to be interested in WOTC and the hobby and still able to bring new people to the hobby.
 

Belen said:
I think it is a fair assessment. Everyone I know came back from D&DXP used similar language. They also used boardgame and MMO to describe the rules set. They really liked the game, but this is how they described it.
Well, if it's an MMO + Boardgame already, it's more then just one of it. And I still wonder if the use of MMO terminology is just because for a stronger... "technical" or mechanical focus in MMO, these terms where coined there, but can be used on "real" role playing games, too. Because I am pretty certain that I could describe characters in any RPG with combat related abilities in terms like "DPS" or "Tank".

So I am not going to say that you cannot roleplay using the 4e rules. I do not think that the rules facilitate it or set it up well. Players get a lot more rolls and decisions to make, but it seems to be designed as a game first. I would say that it is an rpG. People can rp if they want, but it has been designed to enhance and promote gameplay rather than roleplay.
I vehemently disagree here. The rules on skill challenges as far as we can decipher them from the DDXP and the blogs are rules, yes, which means players roll the dice, but if they don't encourage people to roleplay (play their character according to his personality, strength, weaknesses, and in relation to his imaginary enviromnent), I don't know what can.
 
Last edited:

I do not think that the rules facilitate [roleplaying] or set it up well.
People keep saying this. Its one of those "its like they're talking in Martian" moments for me whenever I read it. What SHOULD the rules be doing to facilitate or set up roleplaying? Is there something that previous editions did that facilitated or set up roleplaying, which 4e does not do?

The absolute best I can come up with is mandatory alignment, versus the possibility of selecting "unaligned" in 4e.
 

Orcus said:
Lizard, I generally agree with all your past points but this one I dont. Maybe you didnt mean to go as far as you did here.

I absolultely think it is 100% up in the air what will and wont be allowed under the GSL. I dont know if it will let me do Tome. I dont know if it will let me do Adventure Paths. I dont know if it will let me do my Advanced Player's Guide. I THINK it will let me do all 3, but to say "they've made it very clear what the GSL will be and what it wont allow" is not true. Now, that said, I think you mean they have made it clear ONE thing you wont be able to do is a standalone game that doesnt refer back to the core books, like say Mutants and Masterminds. But aside from that, we have no freaking clue what the GSL will allow or not allow. I do agree it will be more restrictive than the OGL, which essentailly had no restrictions.

To clarify: It is not clear about EVERYTHING which the GSL will/won't allow, or the terms, but the *intent* is clear. They want people to make D&D supplements. Period. No Spycraft, no Conan, no Foundation (not a loss), no Broncosaurus Rex. To my mind, the real issue is "Within the realm of D&D supplements, what will they allow?" Will they let you publish an Elf book if they've got one planned? Will you be able to refer to the gods in the PHB, since they made such a big deal out of it? Will the license be viral? (My money is on 'No'.) Etc.

If there is any more freedom in the GSL than in the OGL, it will be in one area only -- the ability to more closely tie your product to the 'implied world' of the PHB. (Or, in other words, you'll have the freedom to use IP you can't expand on or exploit for your own purposes outside of publishing game supplements.)

Yes, this is speculation, since no one has seen the final license -- including, apparently, WOTC. But I think it's pretty damn solid speculation, and we'll know...well, hopefully, before 2009.
 

Cadfan said:
People keep saying this. Its one of those "its like they're talking in Martian" moments for me whenever I read it. What SHOULD the rules be doing to facilitate or set up roleplaying? Is there something that previous editions did that facilitated or set up roleplaying, which 4e does not do?
Weirdly, I know exactly what you mean. Well, I think so.

Something that comes to mind though, re: the part I bolded. . .

*Not distract players from doing so, and most certainly not work to direct their attention too mucn toward other game elements.*

Now, personally I don't know whether 4e would be inflicting that upon its players, or players-to-be. But *if* it did, that 'should (not)' could apply.

Mostly though, roleplaying will happen if it happens, IMO.
 

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
The board game might (and I am only saying _might_) be required if you enter combat. That would be the board game part. But there is a lot of stuff in the book that is not related to combat or the board-game aspects of combat.

D&D is a game about combat. 90% of the rules are designed to model combat.

That was true of every edition of D&D since its inception.

EDIT: And D&D no more needs "rules" for roleplaying than Monopoly. Roleplaying, almost by definition, defies "rules" as D&D provides them.
 
Last edited:

Cadfan said:
What SHOULD the rules be doing to facilitate or set up roleplaying? .
nothing. But they should also stay out of the way. Again, it isn't an all or nothing thing. There are times when 3E gets in the way more than I like and there would be times when 4e is no problem at all. But the sum total strikes me as clear that the system would jump up more often in 4e and wave an "I'm a game" sign. I don't want that. So given a choice, why would I even consider changing when the current system is better?
 

Remove ads

Top