Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Bruunwald

  1. You might sand, then add another coat of primer, depending on your material and application, but generally for miniatures you can ignore that.


    I don't personally know anybody who actually puts a coat of primer on an ork, then sands, then coats again as some of these manufacturers recommend. That's really something I reserve for automotive repair and some woodworking.

    • Like 4
  2. 2 minutes ago, Marvin said:


    I think this is pretty fair, if maybe overestimating both the dullness of the more straightforward early books and the usefulness of any PHB beyond rules referencing beyond the initial read-throughs. Marketing-wise it probably does make a lot of sense to include some sort of fluff in base materials to help hook the n00bz.

    There are few reasons I can think of, marketing wise, that might seem a benefit to Paizo for jamming the setting into the core, among them what you're saying here. There are also reasons I can think of why it's a bad decision, marketing-wise. Chief among them that Golarion isn't exactly a property as hot as Star Wars, the Cthulhu Mythos, WH40K, or even Forgotten Realms, and Paizo would be banking an awful lot on reeling people in on an IP that is years-tested, yet still not on many people's top ten lists.

  3. 17 minutes ago, Paradoxical Mouse said:

    Ok, so most people I know DID NOT play at all before 5e. 5e made D&D approachable because the core rules weren't just table after table, they had stuff breaking up the tables, interesting setting type stuff. 


    Rulebook without fluff are just dry reference material are just reference books that are only read by the most obsessed with the game and make the game less approachable. Adding the fluff lets people read and get a bit of flavor, be able to imagine how the world is while learning.


    Otherwise, they are relegated to books where you just look at the rules you care about immediately...

    I wouldn't call any of those books "dry reference material." They are filled with exciting illustrations, game play examples, advice on world building, fascinating spell descriptions, and yes, a tiny amount of fluff.


    "Dry reference material" is the old SRD WoTC put out that removed all actual IP and had only statistics, charts, and the barest instructions on how to use the rules. Yet, even that has a sort of fascination to it.


    Now, you need to be careful. Implying that only the most obsessed people would ever bother to read any of the books that came before your time is wrong-headed and kind of gross. Do you really think you can dismiss entire generations of players like that?


    Getting back to it, all I am saying is that vanilla rulesets are very handy tools. They are instruments for world building and storytelling, like guitars are instruments for music. You can always buy a new songbook if you want to do something new with that guitar. A guitar that is programmed to play one tune, would be pretty worthless to me.

  4. 5 hours ago, Werkrobotwerk said:

    No. This is not what I am getting at.


    what I am getting at is an attempt to understand what the specific complaint is. Dr. wyrm's statement about setting names within the rules gets toward what I am trying to understand. I do not agree with it, but convincing people of it or being convinced is not my goal. I want to get to what factors cause this to be an issue for some people so I can better understand what causes people to choose one ruleset over another for specific uses, and to that end what use do people put pathfinder to that doesn't match their new rules changes.

    Okay, that's fine. No offense meant. You seemed to be cautiously getting somewhere using brief posts, and it seemed like that was the direction.


    I can be wrong.

    • Like 1
  5. 4 hours ago, Paradoxical Mouse said:

    On fluff - I've known several people who complained about Pathfinder because there wasn't enough fluff. A number of people I know up like to read the handbooks cover-to-cover like books and appreciate the fluff. Then again, I mostly know gamers who started in the last 10 years, due to my age. 


    Pathfinder's core books had no less fluff than did the 1st through 3.X editions of the D&D core books. Technically speaking, D&D's old default setting was Greyhawk, but you would never know it from reading just core because it was incredibly generic and rather transparent. There were merely the barest mentions of elder spellcaster names in the spell titles, and a handful of deities. Otherwise, it was not much more than a hodge podge of tropes from fantasy, myth and literature.


    So it's hard to imagine what the comparison is. You have forty-some-odd years' tradition worth of non interference vanilla rules there, right from the source of the hobby itself.


    I can appreciate fluff where the setting existed beforehand. For instance, I like the Iron Kingdoms. I like Warmachine/Hordes, and I own the IK RPG books. I bought those for the fluff. But I will never play an IK RPG. Because I don't like getting other people's fluff in my storytelling, and you can't extricate it in such a severe case.


    As to Pathfinder not having enough fluff, one should note that it began as a campaign setting, has volumes upon volumes of campaign setting expansions available, novels, Golarion-themed splatbooks, and an endless line of adventure paths. With that extreme level of fluff available on cheap PDFs to anybody who wants it, regardless of whether they ever even play the game itself, I fail to see why it has to invade the vanilla ruleset.

  6. 4 hours ago, TheAuldGrump said:



    I... am not actually convinced in regards to the simplified monster creation - I prefer a mechanistic, structured approach, and am afraid that this may be borrowing too much from 5e. I like having the same mechanics between creatures and PCs.


    But I might well be in the minority on that one.



    Me, too. To my mind, it only makes sense. Not only does standardization make a system easier to understand in general, it also better ensures more balanced encounters.

  7. 1 hour ago, Dr. Wyrm said:

    I believe it's the immersion-breaking of game mechanics with setting-based names.

    That's a big part of it. I won't lie. As stated before, I am not fond of Golarion, so that affects my feelings on this.


    However, I think what Werkrobotwerk is trying to get to in a nice way, is whether laziness or unfamiliarity with the system are a factor in why somebody would reject infusing the fluff with the crunch.

    In my case, no, I have been gaming the 3.X system since its inception, and by "gaming," I mean tweaking, converting, bending, breaking, smashing, etc., to fit my needs and tastes. I am a mechanics monkey.


    Getting back to my pithy comment that one does not go out of one's way to intentionally buy a chocolate chip cookie full of raisins just so one can have the "privilege" of picking them out one by one... To put that another way, do we make our buying decisions based on how much irritating crap we can put up with in one product versus another? Or do we go with what we don't find irritating at all?


    More importantly in general, I think highly creative people like to feel some sense of "ownership" in what they create. The more derivative a thing is forced to be, the less ownership we feel, and that lessens the sense of accomplishment and lessens investment (read: love) in the thing.


    Additionally, other IPs act as roadblocks to the creative process. Writing around them becomes cumbersome and depending on depth of IP/crunch infusion, can require unhappy rules changes.


    I think some of the latter might be unavoidable when you are publishing third party material that is very genre specific, but doing that comes with a different set of rewards. Somebody else should not have to do that sort of extensive writing just to play his home campaign on his own table.


    Rules as vanilla as Pathfinder currently is, avoid this issue naturally. Infusing fluff into the crunch creates this issue without exception, in my experience.


    • Thanks 1
  8. 4 hours ago, Jordan Peacock said:

    The Space Hello Kitty looks FAB-U-LOUS!  :D  
    "In the grim future of Hello Kitty, there is only war."


    Those undead trooper conversions look pretty sweet, too.


    One thing I really admire, though, is how you took those "starship generators," and carefully made some bolt heads to go on bases to frame them.  Did you find a supply of hex-cross-section plastic sprues?  Or did you have to shave corners to get hexagon heads like that?

    Those are cut from Styrene hex rods from Plasticraft. They come in various sizes. Very good for a quick, bolted-on look. In this case, I cut some normal rod and glued that on top to look like these had been screwed down.


    I used to hit Frys up for tiny plastic nuts in about the same size, but it was pricier and took more work. This is a lot easier.


    I like the little gennies, but I felt they needed a little "value-add," so I mounted them on Plastic Soldier rectangular bases. They painted up nicely. I have after-pics somewhere.

    • Like 4
  9. I have no problem with an update, per se. I mean, it has been ten years.


    My problem is this plan to "infuse" Golarion into the core rules, I assume the same way the lore in infused into Starfinder.


    To me, the biggest turnoff of Starfinder is that the fluff is in many ways inextricably linked to the crunch. As a creative person who writes a lot and likes to feel like I "own" something of my own efforts, I tend not to use pre-published material and find systems where too much fluff is incorporated into the rules to be cumbersome and intrusive. In the case of Golarion, I find the setting occasionally interesting, but largely tedious, and have no interest in core rules that act as a novelization or commercial for same. (I have been vocal on occasion of how much I dislike the name... terrible name for a world.) 


    LOL - I must have made four or five posts on the Paizo site yesterday, airing this same grip. Doubtless, they will ignore myself and the people who agree with me, and that will likely end my previously long and happy relationship with Pathfinder.


    Put it this way: one does not go out of one's way to intentionally buy a chocolate chip cookie full of raisins just so one can have the "privilege" of picking them out one by one.



    • Like 2
  10. I famously add Hello Kitty heads to things. This one is from about eight or nine years ago. I had searched around for a head of the right size until I found a cell phone charm. I molded it, then cast dozens of heads in resin. Since then, I have made Kitty soldiers, Kitty zombies, Kitty Kung Fu masters, etc. This pic is from my Facebook page.


    As a conversion addict, I swap, change, add, modify heads on all sorts of stuff. I recently had a convention. Here are some early-stages pics of some stuff I was working on in advance of the con. All sorts of head swaps here. I have more space skellies, too.





    • Like 13
    • Haha 1
  11. 3 hours ago, TheAuldGrump said:


    With the exception of the game at the dry bar, there have been girls, women, and ladies in all of my games. (And that was how I learned that I have a weakness for nerd girls. :lol: My first girlfriend, the woman I lived with for a while, and my good lady wife, all classic nerd girls. Megan working on her own campaign makes me want to stand up and cheer. Again.)


    The Auld Grump

    Yeah, I get in trouble for saying this sometimes, but with only two odd exceptions*, I have always gamed with girls/women and I always took it for granted. I've known lady gamers since I began playing in 1981. In most of my groups, they have equaled or exceeded the number of males.


    I had to be instructed of this cliche of no girls at the table, or ladies don't like gaming, or what-have-you.


    *The exceptions were one group when I was 13, where one of the players hated that his sister was invited and we all looked at him like he was crazy, and another group that started out all male, where one of the guys did not believe that I had often played with females, and then acted weird for months after ladies began joining us.

    • Like 4
  12. 48 minutes ago, Jeepnewbie said:

    I received an order I placed with Reaper on Friday. The package looked like Ace Ventura delivered it.

    Believe me when I say I totally sympathize.

    But I nearly snorted coffee out my nose when I read that.


    And, no... No, the post office does not care.

    The entirety of their contractual language is geared toward absolving them of blame even for things they directly, intentionally do.

    • Like 7
  13. I was a mix.


    My buddy Bob had just begun playing with his older brother Tony, and there were 1st Edition books (it was early 1981) laying around their house. I flipped through one momentarily, and found it rather awesome, but didn't actually ask what it was, and was not invited to anything.


    Not too long after, in fact, within a month or so (fate? destiny? a trap?!?), my stepdad came home with a box of officially licensed AD&D Grenadier Halflings (with a bonus Ral Partha barbarian stashed away inside). I can't remember now if they had been in the Lost & Found at his work (he worked in a hotel and a LOT of crazy stuff was found over the years), or if somebody had handed them to him because they thought "the kid" might like them. Anyway, I stared at the box for awhile, fell in love with the box art, began imaging the possibilities, and then suddenly my brain connected these with what I had seen at Bob's house.


    "This must mean something," I thought. "These strange metallic shorties must serve some purpose! Perhaps they are toy soldiers of a sort."


    So I went back to Bob, who was enthusiastic, yet condescending. I would love the game, he told me, but he didn't think Tony would want any newbs at the table (nevermind what a newb Bob himself was - he was only 12).


    I realized the toy store up the street had the game, too, so I went there and bought the Pink Basic Rules box with the Erol Otis cover (in later years, a sociopathic - I am NOT kidding - high school girlfriend would swap out her Elmore cover reprint for my Otis original, and go sell my copy to an FLGS, probably, to her dismay, for only store credit). I studied it, but realized I needed help with a lot of the jargon. I got the gist, but my eleven-year-old brain could not seem to concentrate enough on all the abbreviations and weird charts. I understood two things:


    1. That I would love this game.

    2. That if I had to figure out all of the minutia on my own, that love would die in the cradle.


    I started bugging Bob about what it all meant, until finally I was able to produce a character. Probably half because he actually was convinced we might have fun together (we went on to game together for years over some great campaigns) and half to get somebody else on the case, he finally convinced his older brother to let me sit in. My character promptly died in the first ten minutes from a spider bite in what I now believe to be the keep from the Village of Hommlet adventure (at the time I was so stoked to game I didn't ask what the name of the adventure was). I got to watch for awhile while the others played. A little turned off by the other guy at the table (a somewhat jerk of a friend of the brothers who scoffed at my very existence at the table), I promptly grabbed my friend Gabe and began to DM for him.


    After I had improved by chops as DM, I found myself under Tony's wing to an extent, as he began to give me pointers. Eventually, I got to play with him as he ran us though White Plume Mountain, which was a gas.


    However, I've rarely been a player in any RPG. I am almost always the DM/GM. Have been since I was 11. Most GMs I gamed with simply could not get down to business enough for my tastes. The more serious players would eventually get restless, get another game together, and I was usually the GM for whatever game that was. Which is fine, I guess. I am a world builder by nature, and as a consequence of all those earlier, frustrating experiences, I pack a lot into each session.

    • Like 9
  14. 35 minutes ago, ced1106 said:


    fwiw, The Robotech RPG Tactics project was (yes, really) treated as part of Palladium's RPG license.


    Not the first time I've seen such a blur. I don't entirely get it, but Hasbro holds the boardgame rights to Star Wars, while FFG had the miniatures rights, yet still FFG released Imperial Assault. FFG and Hasbro have come to an agreement.

    This reminds me of games like Starfinder, and even going back to the d20 Modern rules, where vehicle-scale combat and character-level combat have a common basis in the rules, but noticeable differences, and where, in general RPG and combat rules are handled almost as if two games; one to aid in character development, the other more of a tactical miniatures exercise.


    I bring this up because such wildly varying treatments in the rules and a general rise in the minutia understood by various manufacturers, publishers, etc., sets precedent for more flexibility in how licenses and open content can be handled.


    From that standpoint, it's easier to see how what appears to the outsider to be a tactical miniatures game, can be viewed by the lawyers as merely an extension of an RPG to which it is connected and meant to "serve" in some capacity. I think negotiation becomes easier when all parties have themselves had a hand in creating this precedent. In this case, for instance, Hasbro themselves created d20 Modern, and before that the D&D 3.X rules, from which they branched off a tactical miniatures game based on the same basic principles. They had a hand in making FFG's bargaining position easier in that sense.


    EDIT: Also note that FFG has the Star Wars RPG license.

    • Like 2
  15. This sucks a lot for the backers, and I am not unsympathetic, but the fascinating part of failed Kickstarter projects for me, will always be the comments from the thousands of people who do not understand contract law, the business side of things, the spirit of what Kickstarter is, and basically the ability to tell the difference between actual scam artists and people who have just messed up.


    It's like a microcosm of the entire internet in one place. Everybody thinks they are an expert and knows so much more than the next guy. But really, ignorance abounds.


    Of course, it's easy to remain detached and objective when it isn't one's own money and expectations.

    • Like 9
  16. Negative to all three, and let my example serve as warning to all parents out there.


    It IS possible to give your non-sports-enthusiastic kid a lifelong aversion to sports in general by having a game/fight/match/tournament/etc. going at all times on every television in the house until he is old enough to move out.


    Moderation: think about it, won't you?

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 1
  • Create New...