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

[BryonD]

Hm. Not really. I think every gamer (or gaming generation) brings some concepts what a hero is, what a certain monster is, what horror is, etc. to the table, mostly formed by the media they were exposed to.
My question is: Why change their perception by bringing fluff and mythology along with the rules?

Of course, but whatever media they were exposed to will include some analog of a Conan. And the horrors of mythos are appreciable, if not "recognizable" in the context of any media background. It sounds to me that you are vastly underestimating the idea of universal archetypes.

As to your question: If the rules are supposed to capture archetypes, then the archetypes are implicit. LotR, Conan, Star Wars, Dragonball Z, whatever other new thing is going, can and will share major archetypes.

 

[Beginning of the End]

The Poll is here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-precentage-they-make-up-your-campaign-2.html

It seems most DM don't use module hardly at all. While a large percentage use modules almost exclusively.

Actually, that poll shows that the majority of DMs (51%) use modules at least 30% of the time. In other words, the majority of DMs use modules at approximately 1 out of 3 sessions. I wouldn't describe that as "hardly at all".

Further, 1 in 5 DMs use modules 80% of the time or more. 1 in 4 DMs are using them basically 3 times out of 4.

And that's a poll conducted here at ENWorld. So even if we ignore the statistically irrelevant nature of a self-selective poll in general, you're also dealing with a pool of respondents who are generally more dedicated to the hobby (and, thus, presumably more likely to homebrew).

 

[avin]

My question is: Why change their perception by bringing fluff and mythology along with the rules?

Options are good. Inspiration is good. 4E is crowded with monsters which weren't present on former editions, and there's no decent fluff to support them so no perception would be harmed.

My opinion here, of course, is biased. Every DM I know around me like fluff and use it to inspire his campaign. If the fluff presented on the book don't please him it's just a matter of letting their *perception* flow in and change.

Maybe this (no fluffers) DMs minds is so closed to new ideas and they have been running the same homebrew fluff for years or decades now that they don't want it because it's not what they use...

I still need to see with my eyes a campaign from a DM who don't want fluff in the games to judge if he really doesn't need it because he has their own or just because he doesn't use fluff at all. Until that, for sure, I want more and more fluff.

The space for pure crunch is (for 4E) Monster Builder or Compendium.

 

[avin]

Cool, from MM3 description on Amazon!

"Monster Manual® 3 introduces a new monster format that offers more background and story material to inspire Dungeon Masters."

 

[Jack99]

Cool, from MM3 description on Amazon!

"Monster Manual® 3 introduces a new monster format that offers more background and story material to inspire Dungeon Masters."

\o/

 

[Nikosandros]

Cool, from MM3 description on Amazon!

"Monster Manual® 3 introduces a new monster format that offers more background and story material to inspire Dungeon Masters."

Excellent!

 

[Garmorn]

Actually, that poll shows that the majority of DMs (51%) use modules at least 30% of the time. In other words, the majority of DMs use modules at approximately 1 out of 3 sessions. I wouldn't describe that as "hardly at all".

Further, 1 in 5 DMs use modules 80% of the time or more. 1 in 4 DMs are using them basically 3 times out of 4.

And that's a poll conducted here at ENWorld. So even if we ignore the statistically irrelevant nature of a self-selective poll in general, you're also dealing with a pool of respondents who are generally more dedicated to the hobby (and, thus, presumably more likely to homebrew).

Yea, I just point out the link and read the wrong column when I responded.

I think the poll has no use full data or information for this thread. Just because they use or don't use adventures does not tell us how much of the fluff they use. It can be I use every thing in the module to I don't use anything but the crunch to I steal all of the back ground fluff and forget every thing else.

I am in the camp that while fluff is great it is not necessary for rule books, and there is never enough for setting books.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

In my personal opinion, some modern games are too hung up on the details of the current kiddie pop culture fad.

...

But rather than subtley integrating the past thirty years of ideas into the game (for example, Darth Maul is cool, suddenly D&D 3X has double bladed swords as a standard troupe[sic]), 4E has taken that base structure and really poured a heavy coat of the last ten years of fantasy fad all over the top.

Do the people who play this D&D you describe here, perchance, position themselves now and then on your lawn? And is there, would you say, a feeling welling up when they do this which makes you whish they would relocate themselves?

 

[Fifth Element]

Maybe this (no fluffers) DMs minds is so closed to new ideas and they have been running the same homebrew fluff for years or decades now that they don't want it because it's not what they use...

So... don't agree with you = closed to new ideas.

Good point. Never considered that before.

 

[BryonD]

Do the people who play this D&D you describe here, perchance, position themselves now and then on your lawn? And is there, would you say, a feeling welling up when they do this which makes you whish they would relocate themselves?

No and No.

Though they have on occasion wandered past trying to find some friends to come play with them.