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

[Rechan]

The problem becomes when the flavor gets inexoribly tied to the crunch. People complained about ghouls and where ghoul paralysis comes from. Apparently we didn't actually know where it came from until 2e - a decade or more after the appearance of ghouls.

Bear in mind that I repeat this factoid merely from having read it here on EnWorld a few years ago, and I may not be correct, or have misremembered.

The actual reason Ghouls paralyze has nothing to do with flavor at all, origin-wise. Back before D&D, in Chainmail, ghouls could paralyze. It was just one of the rules. A situation cropped up where it became apparent that a squad of ghouls could take down a larger, or more equipped, or more trained (I'm not quite sure) group of soldiers, like elves. It didn't make sense, and was a bit of a rules flaw. So elves were made immune to the paralysis.

So the whole ghoul/elf immunity thing was a hold-over from Chainmail. And the whole thing wasn't chosen for flavor purposes, but for rules/variations to make interesting wargame simulations.

 

[delericho]

Bear in mind that I repeat this factoid merely from having read it here on EnWorld a few years ago, and I may not be correct, or have misremembered.

The reason isn't mentioned in the 2nd Edition Monstrous Compendium (folder) or Monstrous Manual (hardback). It's also not mentioned in the 1st Edition Monster Manual. Of course, it might have been added later, in some supplement or other; I'm not for checking all of those!

(FWIW, it's also not mentioned in the 3e MM, and I didn't spot it in Libris Mortis in my brief look.)

Actually, the MMs do include a rather nice rule, though: Ghouls used to be held at bay by "the magic circle of a protection from evil spell", which can give rise to a very Dracula-esque scene. Shame that was dropped.

 

[Woas]

Gee randomly remember that discussion about ghouls around here on ENWorld too... could it have been one of the question/answers in one of the many Ask Gary threads?

Bear in mind that I repeat this factoid merely from having read it here on EnWorld a few years ago, and I may not be correct, or have misremembered.

 

[Coldwyn]

Part of it certainly boils down how your individual creativity process works. Do you have a scene in mind and look for fitting monster or do you browse monster entries in search for creative imput.
In the first case, BECMI and 4E are great.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Jeff Wilder - you pshaw the idea that video games in the 80's wasn't a huge time sink.

No, I scoff at the idea that it was time sink for anywhere near as many teenagers as it is now, and I scoff at the idea that the number of geeky distractions in the 80s was anywhere near what it is now. It's just absurd that anybody is even disputing this.

What percentage of homes in the 80s had personal computers? What percentage of homes had gaming consoles? And how about now?

 

[ggroy]

I wonder how many people using this forum use time that used to be for reading fiction?

Sort of. Time that I use to spend reading non-fiction books, has been eaten up by posting online.

 

[Turtlejay]

The assumption that just because this generation does something new/different and therefore they are deficient is not a new one. Kids today are surrounded by sources of inspiration and mental stimulation. Just because this is not the same type as their parents doesn't mean that they have less of an imagination or an ability to create.

WotC with their 'everything is core' philosophy would not be able to publish a book of fluff and not have it invlidate the openness they created with the current books, but a third party could certainly do so. While I don't see myself as a consumer of such a book, I have no doubt the market exists for a quality product of that type.

Also, I'd have an easier time taking the OP's assertations seriously if he hadn't used the work 'desperately' in the title. It implies immediate action or disaster. I don't think either is likely to happen.

Jay

 

[Dice4Hire]

People don't read for pleasure. People have not read for pleasure in decades, if they ever did at all. Look at your parents. How many books do you think they read in a year? Look at your parent's friends. How many books? Reading for pleasure is not as common as people think.

Your argument was pretty good till here.

My parents do. 2-3 books a week each. I do. 2-3 books a week.

Maybe we are in the minority, but we do exist. Numbers are lower, not non-existent.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Your family, like mine, is far and away the exception.

One of my best friend's father was an English major. He had a lot of books on a wide variety of stuff. My buddy? Fantasy & a few other topics,+ gaming books. His wife didn't bring any to the marriage.

And when I go to my friends houses, the story varies only in details. In most houses, the bookshelves hold more knick-nacks than books, and for some, more computer games than either.

Personally, I have more books than my 6 closest cousins, their parents, and my mom's cousins...combined. (Then again, I have what could loosely be called a library.)

My parents, OTOH, each have book collections measured in the hundreds. My Dad's would be much larger, but he went the "borrowing" route before I was born, so rarely buys books anymore.

 

[Philosopher]

Yet people assume because that's the flavour, then it must be true in all cases.

If that's a problem, then wouldn't it equally be a problem that a lack of flavor will lead people to assume there's nothing there? Slavish adherence to the letter of what's in a rulebook goes both ways.

People don't read for pleasure. People have not read for pleasure in decades, if they ever did at all. Look at your parents. How many books do you think they read in a year? Look at your parent's friends. How many books? Reading for pleasure is not as common as people think.

Nonsense. My wife and I read many books every year (novels and nonfiction alike), as do/did both of our parents. Many people I know read for pleasure, and not just the academic-types.

That said, I do think reading is on the decline. I do know people who don't read at all. But to claim that people don't read for pleasure is simply ludicrous.