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

[Snoweel]

Yes, to err is human. But errors remain errors.

Right.

My point is though, that we can't agree on where the error lies because we're human.

Look, I understand all of this. As I said, the position you hold seems to be a reasonable one. I was not criticizing your position, I was criticizing the argument you made about preconceptions. Do you understand the difference?

I have been using my position to illustrate why some people are happy with the amount of fluff in the core books, and why preconceptions are a reason for that.

True, but this wasn't the best example, then. I've run games in which the players' preconceptions come up in the middle of a session. They engage a course of action that reflects those preconceptions. I point this out to them, let them readjust their decisions, and we move on. That's all it takes. It's really not that big of a deal.

Surely there's a tipping point (where the 'reality' of the setting deviates so much from preconceived assumptions of the implied core setting) where it really is 'that big of a deal'. Maybe not for you, but certainly for others.

Okay, let's stop for a moment here. I'm not disagreeing with the position you hold, as I stated above. But the reasons you give here don't work.

Mate, if they work for even one person (in this case, me) then they work. That's simple logic. I've stated repeatedly that my argument doesn't apply to everyone which is why some people aren't happy with the fluff of the core books.

Let's say it's true that if I want to go against lots of established flavor, I need to write up a 20 page document in order to let the players know what to expect in my campaign. If the players really need all that information before we can start playing, then what happens if there is no flavor?

Then you'd probably have to write up some kind of campaign guide. Which is why I'm not a fan of 'no fluff' either.

I'd have to give them everything myself, wouldn't I?

Yep.

That would go beyond your hypothetical 20 pages.

Not necessarily.

Now, of course, this is ludicrous. As we both know, I don't need to give that much information just to start a campaign (although I could if I wanted to). Rather, I can just give them a basic overview, and fill them in as we play the campaign. But if that's true, then the starting point (the claim you make at the start of the previous paragraph) is not true. I don't need to write up pages and pages of flavor.

I put it to you that not knowing something isn't the same as having erroneous knowledge about something.

Just as I can tell players, "Don't assume that things are the same as Lord of the Rings," I can also tell my players, "Don't assume that things are always the same as what's in the core books. If at some point in the campaign, you (as the player) makes an assumption that your character would know to be false, I'll point it out." Simple.

It's only simple if you expect your players to make you aware of all their assumptions. But humans don't convey our thoughts that way. In fact, we usually don't even consciously think that way. How do you expect to know a player's assumptions when she might not be fully aware of them herself? (See? Mixing up the gender. Everything I learned about political correctness I learned from WotC.)

I repeat, this is not a challenge to your claim about a "happy medium". Of course different people have different preferences about that. It's a challenge to your argument that player preconceptions is a reason to include less flavor. Maybe less flavor is better, I'm just saying that this argument does not establish that.

Player preconceptions is definitely a reason to include less flavour because it's an issue at least some of us have had to deal with. It might not be an issue for everyone (in fact I know it isn't because it's clearly not an issue for you) but for some of us it is and it has been in the past.

I suggest it's one reason many people don't like to use published settings. But before you jump the gun I repeat it is only one reason. Even preconceptions of liberal democracy have been an issue at my table.

To restate, I think too much fluff, and no fluff at all are both less than ideal in the core books. However, for different reasons. Only too much fluff raises the issue of player preconceptions.

Hyperbole is making an exaggerated claim. I was not exaggerating. I was drawing an implication, as I've explained above. I am not saying that you believe something you didn't state, and I'm not saying that you assumed something you didn't state. I'm saying that if you follow the logic of what you did state, you end up with a ludicrous conclusion. Therefore, what you stated (about preconceptions, not about anything else) is faulty.

I think you're hearing something I'm not saying.

I'm actually very careful with my logic and absolute statements and I don't see how you could have a problem with my argument unless you've missed a qualifier somewhere.

The implication you're drawing doesn't fit. If I say some DMs will experience problems at the table due to player preconceptions caused by too much core fluff, that can't be reduced. Do you think I'm saying all DMs will experience that problem? Or do you think I'm also applying this argument o the problem of no fluff at all (which I believe is a different problem)?

Or does your argument hinge on the subjective fact that because you've got no problem correcting your players' assumptions as they become an issue (notwithstanding the probability that neither you nor the player will even be made aware of all of the player's assumptions until long after they've become an issue, if at all) then no DM should have a problem with it?

Further, I really don't know why you keep coming back to this argument. If you really believe that it's all about personal preference, why do you keep trying to show that less flavor is better?

I'm not trying to show that less flavour is better; I've been saying that the right amount of flavour is better. That is, neither too much nor too little.

You're the one who's been saying more flavour should suit everybody because the people who want less flavour can just ignore it. I disagree and I've explained why it's not that simple.

Of course they are. But do you believe they're fully rational pure money-makers that exist in a completely context-free environment? That they're in business to make money can be taken for granted. What goes on in any business is rather complex; they are many factors, from the profit motive to intra-company politics, that influence what a company does. All I was saying is that tossing out "market research" does not mean we can't critique what they do (or don't do).

No, you seemed to imply that they don't do market research. That or it doesn't inform their decisions.

D&D isn't owned by gamers anymore, it's owned by shareholders. That says to me that standard business practices are used in the development, testing and marketing of the company's products.

 

[Philosopher]

Right.

My point is though, that we can't agree on where the error lies because we're human.

No, intersubjective agreement is certainly a possibility, even though it may require a fair bit of work on the part of those having a discussion.

Case in point... I think I understand what you're saying now. I don't think you fully see the point I was making, and I still take issue with how you worded things in your earlier posts, but none of the remaining disagreements I have with you are major enough to continue this.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[SSquirrel]

I seem to recall that the 2E PHB was Palatino 8/10. The 4E PHB appears to weigh in with Mentor at 9.75/13. If I'm right, this means the text is over 20% larger and the leading is 30% taller.

Of course, font size isn't everything.

Nope it isn't, there are lots of other factors as well. Like how many columns of the smaller print 2E had for one. If there was a smaller font it would have made much more room for things like more monsters in the 4E MM like some people want. Me, I was fine with it as is. I'm one of the only people in my family that doesn't wear glasses and I think only a couple of my friends don't wear them. The larger font size may be a better move in the long run, esp as the core audience ages with the game.

Heck, the lack of fluff in the core can actually enhance that dread phrase "sense of wonder*". You actually are left wondering "Why does the touch of a ghoul paralyze people?" instead of being told "The ghoul has a necrotic poisonous touch that paralyzes its victims".

* This phrase is overused and I hate it, but it sort of fit things.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Honestly, I don't think, as a percentage, it's changed all that much. just the level of computing power.

You are massively, massively incorrect.

Total share: 30 years of personal computer market share figures

 

[Hussar]

You are massively, massively incorrect.

Total share: 30 years of personal computer market share figures

A couple of points Jeff. First off, your quoted article is only concerned with PC's and not consoles. I also note that you quote over to page 5 of the article, ignoring the "Sales of this new computer took off, reaching a staggering 2 million units in 1983. This incredible volume, unheard of in the personal computer industry before (and it would still be a respectable figure for a new computer model today!) allowed Commodore to get its final revenge on Texas Instruments"

And that's only the C64.

I think you drastically underestimate how many households had either a PC or a console in the 80's. While I agree that there's more now, I won't disagree there, it was hardly rare for homes to have one or the other in the 80's.

Maybe I'm just going by personal experience here. Like I said, every school in my county had PC's by the mid 80's, heck, by the time I finished high school in 1989, it was standard policy in all departments that all reports had to be printed, nothing handwritten.

Heck, even in your own quotes, there are over 10 million sales of computers in the US alone. And that doesn't count anything other than those computers of the time. No consoles.

The big difference is now, it's quite possible for a home to have multiple consoles and multiple PC's. But, claiming that there was no competition for time in the 80's from computers or consoles is, IMO, not true.

 

[SSquirrel]

The big difference is now, it's quite possible for a home to have multiple consoles and multiple PC's. But, claiming that there was no competition for time in the 80's from computers or consoles is, IMO, not true.

By the end of the 80s we had a 286 pc in one room as well as an ATARI2600 (got it in 1979 when I was 3), a NES and a Sega Genesis all hooked up to one TV. I played lots of games, but I still read lots of books, listened to music and played RPGs. The hours and hours of sitting around making crazy characters then going into single combat and killing the gods of Greyhawk w/a friend one day was amusing.

BTW, the strategy there was to kill Death first, then use his scythe as it had some ridiculously awesome kill abilities.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

A couple of points Jeff. First off, your quoted article is only concerned with PC's and not consoles. I also note that you quote over to page 5 of the article, ignoring the "Sales of this new computer took off, reaching a staggering 2 million units in 1983. This incredible volume, unheard of in the personal computer industry before (and it would still be a respectable figure for a new computer model today!) allowed Commodore to get its final revenge on Texas Instruments"

And that's only the C64.

You said that there were approximately the same percentage of households with computers, with the difference being processing power. I provided a link showing that computers are more than 10 times -- 10 times! -- more common now.

Yes, PC sales exploded in the 80s. And yet, they were a tiny fraction of PC sales and ownership now.

And I'm sure that with a little searching, you could find the same holds true for game consoles.

There is simply no way -- none -- that computer ownership "as a percentage, [hasn't] changed all that much. just the level of computing power." That is, as I said, massively incorrect.

 

[Hussar]

Fair enough Jeff. Sorry, that was a misspeak on my part.

My entire point was to disagree with you that computers or consoles weren't massive time sinks in the 80's.

 

[Failed Saving Throw]

I think these discussion always miss this:

How the heck could a 12 year old that had never played before (or 16 year old, or whatever) develop ANY fluff at all that had any meaning? I just think the MM should have:

A clear description of the monster
A little bit about tactics
A little bit about the culture. What is the difference between the various evil humanoid races?

As for "most DMs want their own fluff". I call bull. I want fluff I can use, or not use. But, I want fluff to inspire my ideas. I have two kids, golf, ski, volunteer for two groups, work full time.....I don't have time to do all my own work. I do have time to take decent to good modules and make them fit into my concepts (but my concepts are based on 40+ years of reading and watching movies and playing D&D).

Fluff is needed for beginners. It is needed to provide inspiration. And, sometimes, it is needed to be used as is.

This is really it in a nutshell. Also, I question the assertion that the majority of DMs out there run their own material. Most DMs I know use modules.

 

[Snoweel]

This is really it in a nutshell. Also, I question the assertion that the majority of DMs out there run their own material. Most DMs I know use modules.

I think there's a fairly recent poll around here about this.

IIRC it turned out most DMs borrow bits and pieces from modules for their homebrew campaigns.

Or maybe I'm projecting.