• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Pathfinder 1E WotC desperately needs to learn from Paizo and Privateer Press

I don't have much of a problem with WotC's periodical model of publishing. It's pretty obvious that in modern RPG design, pumping out a fairly steady stream of products is one of the best ways to insure that your game continues to make money and stays relevant. That's fine - I like reading and collecting RPG books.

But with 4E, WotC has waded deep into a rut of mediocrity with many of their products. The published adventures have thus far been largely uninspiring affairs. Too often they suffer from being too repetitive and combat-heavy. Even if your players are the kinds who like classic dungeon-crawling and hack-and-slash, adventures like Revenge of the Giants turn into tedious chains of combat after combat.

The Monster Manuals are far more disappointing. I'm one of those DMs who feels that 4E is actually a very elegant system, and I applaud the forward thinking put into how 4E has improved running D&D for DMs. But so we get this great system...and a complete dearth of good fluff. The Monster books are nothing more than boring lists of stats. There's no real flavor at all to inspire DMs and make monster encounters more memorable.

What frustrates me more is that all WotC writers need to do is check out what some of their peers have done and continue to do. First of all, Paizo. Forget about Pathfinder for a minute and concentrate instead on their modules and Adventure Paths. In short, while some of them have flaws, they are amazing products, full of great stories, ideas, maps, new monsters, plot arcs, art and cool NPCs. Ten years from now, I don't think people will be waxing nostalgic about Revenge of the Giants or Seekers of the Ashen Crown. But they will still be talking about Curse of the Crimson Throne.

Further, Golarion is easily the best-developed fantasy setting to hit the scene in years. The campaign setting book is outstanding, and the "micro" splatbooks on the cities, gods and races of Golarion have been great.

As far as monster books go, the standard - besides the 2E Monstrous Compendiums, which were awesome - needs to be Privateer Press' Monsternomicons. Those books are jam-packed with great fluff. The approach of each monster described by a single narrator is brilliant, and the art and atmosphere of each book is superb. Instead of just a stat bloc and some cursory information about each monster that only boisl down to "this is what this thing is going to do when it tries to kill you," the Monsternomicons establish how each monster fits into the world and how they're perceived. Dozens of adventure ideas pop effortlessly from these books.

WotC needs to step up its game. Other companies have truly raised the bar with campaign, adventure and monster design, and I think 4E players would enthusiastically embrace an improvement in products to come.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I agree and disagree with this. My agreement is with the fact that the WotC books are very hard to read because of the lack of fluff. My disagreement is that I believe this was by design to allow DMs to customize the monsters to their own campaigns. By giving monsters origins, but little or no background, that allows the DM to then take that starting point and build upon it using their campaigns as the frame of reference. The only problem I have with this is that sometimes I just don't have time to mess with this and it would be nice to have that done for me. Still, I think I'd rather have a generic, statted-out monster that I can customize than a fully fleshed-out monster that I have to retrofit or revise completely to fit my campaign.

I do think their campaign worlds should take the monsters and flesh them out. They may do that, but I don't know because I don't buy their campaign books.
 

WotC needs to step up its game. Other companies have truly raised the bar with campaign, adventure and monster design, and I think 4E players would enthusiastically embrace an improvement in products to come.

I don't consider WotC to be good at adventure design. I don't even think WotC really wants to create adventures. They had to. If they were really into creating adventures, there would be a bunch of them by now.

I like the MM the way it is. There is more than enough monster background included in the check DCs to be able to use them for me.

What 4E is lacking, becuase of the GSL, is good 3rd party support for those people that like that. I don't happen to like (for adventures) that so it doesn't bother me at all.
 

*chuckle*

To this day, I still shake my head as to how the 2e Monsterous Manual has become the shining beacon of how to do Monster books.

Pre WOTC, when SKR was still just a poster dueling with Rob Repp, the consensus from rec.games.frp.dnd that I remember was that the 2e MM was a prime example of how 2e was a dumbed down version of 1e and how it basically sucked because of all the padding a.k,a the fluff.

When did this change?
 

Well, WotC creates D&D, the best roleplaying game around. Thats good enough for me.

As for the adventures, they aren't all so bad. They are just a different breed than Paizo's. Both are railroads but WotC's focus seems to be on making cool fights (and too many of them), whereas Paizo's seems to be on making cool fluff and an overload of info.

That makes WotC adventures easier to fit into homebrew campaigns, while Paizo's require a lot more work to fit into a world that is not Golarion. Considering that, it makes perfect sense for WotC to produce the kind of adventures that they do.

Regarding the MM's, even though I am a huge fan of 2e's MM, they are just fine, because they give me the stats and a couple of pointers, and leave plenty of room for me to be creative. When that is said, they should have included descriptions of the monsters.
 

*chuckle*

To this day, I still shake my head as to how the 2e Monsterous Manual has become the shining beacon of how to do Monster books.

Pre WOTC, when SKR was still just a poster dueling with Rob Repp, the consensus from rec.games.frp.dnd that I remember was that the 2e MM was a prime example of how 2e was a dumbed down version of 1e and how it basically sucked because of all the padding a.k,a the fluff.

When did this change?

It never did. Back then I and many D&D gamers I knew devoured the Compendiums. I've sold most of my 2E books - but I still have all of my Compendium binders. What you're referencing just sounds like the usual grognard edition war bull that I tend to ignore.
 

Lets face it, there are different needs. The only thing that was a more or less dubious decision was the GSL.

But lets face it, Most peolpe want crunch. Fluff is something that is independant from editions. So, if someone wanted to create a book full of fluff for 4th edition, no GSL can prevent him to do so.
And even with GSL adding fluff is not forbidden. If I have understood it right, changing crunch is forbidden and may only be referenced, not copied. So a monster fluff book which covers most monsters in MM1 and 2 could be done...

but will it be profitable? i doubt it.
 


The Monster Manuals are far more disappointing. I'm one of those DMs who feels that 4E is actually a very elegant system, and I applaud the forward thinking put into how 4E has improved running D&D for DMs. But so we get this great system...and a complete dearth of good fluff. The Monster books are nothing more than boring lists of stats. There's no real flavor at all to inspire DMs and make monster encounters more memorable.

The one thing that I think 4E did well is that there's mechanical fluff, especially for races. You can have all the convoluted history and back story you want, but it doesn't really make a dozen monster races stand out from each other. However things like a shifty kobold or goblin tactics or an orc's attack and healing surge when bloodied gives the races a real mechanical hook that I've found my players respond to pretty well.

All of these serve to make encounters a lot more different in a fairly tangible way, which is better than fluff that the DM will often throw out/rewrite for their own adventurers/world.

Fluff also belongs in setting books and not rulebooks, in my opinion. I know how goblins fit into Eberron, and that works better for me than piles of fluff in a monster manual that are worthless if I'm running there.
 

Well, WotC creates D&D, the best roleplaying game around. Thats good enough for me.

As for the adventures, they aren't all so bad. They are just a different breed than Paizo's. Both are railroads but WotC's focus seems to be on making cool fights (and too many of them), whereas Paizo's seems to be on making cool fluff and an overload of info.

That makes WotC adventures easier to fit into homebrew campaigns, while Paizo's require a lot more work to fit into a world that is not Golarion. Considering that, it makes perfect sense for WotC to produce the kind of adventures that they do.

Regarding the MM's, even though I am a huge fan of 2e's MM, they are just fine, because they give me the stats and a couple of pointers, and leave plenty of room for me to be creative. When that is said, they should have included descriptions of the monsters.

Some of the adventures are indeed better than others - Thunderspire Labyrinth springs to mind. But taken as a whole, as I said, they're uninspiring. They do focus far too much on designing cool tactical combats. A degree of that is fine, but when that's all there is, at least with my groups, enthusiasm fizzles.

I can't fault Paizo for designing adventures that don't fit well into game worlds than Golarion, because their campaign world is so well done that I'm happy to use the setting and just utilize 4E mechanics instead.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top