Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder BETA - Some Sizzle, Not Much Steak

[The Highway Man]

Your chess knight isn't suddenly going to move along diagonals because that's what he would do in character.
-blarg

Precisely why RPGs aren't supposed to have chess rules.

 

[Tervin]

Sidetrekking, but can't help myself...

Also, from experience, any conversation that starts defining terms and pulls off dictionaries to frame the debate is, in effect, over. We won't get anywhere from there if we persist in debating what words mean instead of what the posts actually try to convey.

I won't be debating words further, personally.

If I have understood what that post says correctly, then I totally disagree with you. If we don't agree on definitions of terminology, we aren't even really debating the same thing. If we instead take it for granted that everybody understand what everybody else means with their use of language, then people will misunderstand each other, and think they are disagreeing when they are in fact not.

I have seen that happen so many times over the years, on the Internet that I started to think it this the main reason behind messageboard flame wars.

The trick with setting up definitions is that there is not a clear cut truth as to what words mean. But if we make sure that others understand what we mean when we use them, we avoid being misunderstood. To be exact, we don't need to agree on the definitions, but we need to make sure that others understand what we mean by the terms we use. (If the latter is what you meant, then I no longer disagree with you there... )

And back on the track...

My point is that 4E is built for playing the rules, and that one has basically to think in terms of rules to do anything constructive in combat.

No. In fact more No to that in 4E than in every earlier version of D&D. The by now notorious page 42 in the DMG is my basis for that claim. That page gives the DM a system as support when players think outside of the rules in combat. What is new in 4E is that there is more that you can do inside the rules in combat. That doesn't mean that you can't do stuff outside of them.

 

[blargney the second]

Precisely why RPGs aren't supposed to have chess rules.

Exactly right. No edition of D&D has chess rules - it's an analogy. Translated back into D&D speak: your wizard isn't suddenly going to get sneak attack damage because that's what he would do in character.

 

[ruemere]

[...]If I have understood what that post says correctly, then I totally disagree with you. If we don't agree on definitions of terminology, we aren't even really debating the same thing. If we instead take it for granted that everybody understand what everybody else means with their use of language, then people will misunderstand each other, and think they are disagreeing when they are in fact not.[...]

I do recommend reading the following article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
Articles 3 and 17 should be considered.

My point is simple - you always need a token amount of goodwill to agree or at least find some conclusion. Otherwise, nitpicking and sidetracking may ruin any chance for compromise. And that's what probably your predecessor was hintint at.

[...]What is new in 4E is that there is more that you can do inside the rules in combat. That doesn't mean that you can't do stuff outside of them.

In 4E you use rules to produce combos to get ahead within statistics. Actually, it's not a bad thing, yet, while some people may be happy operating within such artificial supersystem, there are people who definitely prefer things like "I hit him with a chair" and who worry about applicable mechanics later.

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. Can we go back to criticizing Pathfinder please? There is no much point in talking about 4E here.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

re: Simulationist
Um, reading this thread AND others, there were MULTIPLE times when people disparged 4E for not being for Simulationists and that 3E is better if you actually want to match the experience of a book and 4E is for those that like "videogames"

Not once did I see anyone mention how genre-busting the existence of wands of lesser vigoe and the cheesiness of nightsticks make hash of any novel aspiration

(Really, ProfessorCirno, using a D&D novel to rebut my point? Come on, even in D&D, this was an abnormality).

The thing is, I kinda agree with you that D&D should model itself but then I think it's not kosher to then turn around and argue for Simulationism as being the hallmark of 3E when it produces situations like that.

Seriously, I know people hate the power system of 4E as being "so like a videogame" and all that, but how in the world do people tolerate the crack pipe that is wands of lesser vigor/cure light wounds?

"Simulationist"

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

I noticed you handily ignored all of my post but one line, so I'll repeat myself: Do you ban all wands from your games? Do you ban first aid kits?

Wands are not a "gamist" anything. They are a clear, excepted, and internally consistent part of the game. There is absolutely nothing odd about adventurers saying "Well, we're going into this horrible, death giving area. We'd better bring some healing supplies."

You asked about "WHAT FILMS HAD WANDS THAT HEAL HUH?" Well, what films had straight out healers? How many action films have the group go "Wait, guys, let's rest here for awhile so our cleric can heal us." How many novels have the group take a short break so one of them can use their magic spells to relieve the entire party of their wounds?

You're taking something very small and very specific and you're trying (failing, but trying) to make it into a big deal. It's not. There's nothing odd about a group of death-defying adventurers deciding "Hey, big horrible evil things are going to gnaw on us, we should probably bring medical supplies." You can throw around "crackpipe" as much as you want; it doesn't make your argument any more valid.

 

[Kerrick]

PS. Can we go back to criticizing Pathfinder please? There is no much point in talking about 4E here.

Gladly. Where's that new trap system Jason was talking about? I thought it was going to get included in the beta. For that matter, I remember seeing something about poisons, but I don't recall seeing them in the beta either (they might well be there and I missed them, though).

 

[Wicht]

Gladly. Where's that new trap system Jason was talking about? I thought it was going to get included in the beta. For that matter, I remember seeing something about poisons, but I don't recall seeing them in the beta either (they might well be there and I missed them, though).

There is a blurb at the end of the beta about forthcoming pdfs. One of them, IIRC, will contain things like poisons.

 

[Moggthegob]

For a certain style of gameplay, the players are paper dolls is true. Many DMs I play with in those situation make it clear the purpose is to challenge the player and not the character.

Not everyones cup of tea (not even my own all of the time), but regardless, it is an integral part of tabletop gaming. 1e and 3e are more amenable to it than 2e and 4e, and other than that, what more do you want from me.

 

[Cadfan]

Not to bash 4E, but in my opinion it is moving further and further away from "realistic simulation" and just closer to being a "game".

Soon arrows will be limitless as well.

People are terrified of "One shot one kill" spells, so those are gone. So it makes sense that they would also demand that they be able to have 10 encounters per day, have 25 HP at first level, etc...

Too few want there to be any sense of real risk or challenge, they just want to kill things and take their stuff, without sweating "survival".

I mean who wants to play a game where a character they have spent hours and hours playing dies? Thats too much like someone living to being 25 and being shot and killed on the street corner. A waste of precious time/life.

So put up the padded walls, pad the rocks, and ground, put on life jackets, and load up on the rubber arrows and bolts, and switch to wooden swords.

Challenge is now an illusion. Hardly anyone dies now. Now PC deaths are only by accident.

Objecting to swinginess is not the same as objecting to risk to your character. Understand this, grasshopper, and you may attain enlightenment. Or at least stop being an enormous jerk on message boards.

 

[The Highway Man]

Objecting to swinginess is not the same as objecting to risk to your character. Understand this, grasshopper, and you may attain enlightenment. Or at least stop being an enormous jerk on message boards.

Nice job on the condescending/insulting part of the equation on message boards, too. Is that part of the enlightenment package? If so, thanks, but no, thanks.