Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cassu

So, tell me about Pathfinder

Recommended Posts

 

 

I'll never understand the PF lovers need to put down 4E. It's like the defining characteristic of the PF fan. :p

Up till now, this has been a relatively personalities free thread. Can we please keep this sort of comment for other boards?

Heh. Wasn't it about this time last year that you scolded me for "stifling discussion" by asking people not to engage in edition warring?

 

Could be. I can barely remember last Thursday. ^_^

 

But there's a qualitative difference between "I hate Champions: The New Millenium with the burning intensity of a thousand suns because ...." and "People who play C:TNM are everything that's wrong with roleplaying these days."

Edited by Doug Sundseth
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'll never understand the PF lovers need to put down 4E. It's like the defining characteristic of the PF fan. :p

Up till now, this has been a relatively personalities free thread. Can we please keep this sort of comment for other boards?

Heh. Wasn't it about this time last year that you scolded me for "stifling discussion" by asking people not to engage in edition warring?

 

Could be. I can barely remember last Thursday. ^_^

 

But there's a qualitative difference between "I hate Champions: The New Millenium with the burning intensity of a thousand suns because ...." and "People who play C:TNE are everything that's wrong with roleplaying these days."

 

Well... they are....

 

(What's C:TNE? ::P: )

 

I may not like 4e, but I do not blame the players for much of anything. (Except for the F4nboys... but I feel the same way about J3rks.)

 

I reserve my irritation for WotC - there is something that is just wrong about the first shots in an Edition War being fired by the company that produced both games. :rolleyes:

 

The Auld Grump - 4e may not have deserved the H4tred, but WotC did....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, when 4e was on the horizon there were promise of online game tables that were eventually dropped and online tools were you had to pay each month (like WoW subsciptions that people keep bringing up) that annoyed many players. The original "core" books felt incomplete as they were missing iconic classes or monsters. And things like the GSL instead of the OGL just drove tons of good publishers away.

 

These elements did not help 4e's adoption and it had *nothing* to do with the core mechanics of the game itself.

As an aside - the Pathfinder online game table is currently in Beta, I gather that the Paizo VTT was announced at the same Gen Con where WotC announced that they wouldn't be producing an online tabletop... cancelled without ever leaving Beta.... :rolleyes:

 

I gather that the folks in charge of WotC were... surprised... at how expensive setting up such a network actually costs, not to mention the ongoing costs.

 

Programmers cost money - and want to be paid.

 

The Auld Grump - Hasbro has traditionally had problems understanding the software market....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely "Simulationist" and "Realist" are the same thing?

 

I've always heard "Narrativist" used for the third option.

 

And personally, I think it's bollocks; I don't fancy an "either or" aspect to my roleplaying, I like having all three in roughly equal amounts.

 

Well, I came at it from war games, not RPGs. In ancient debates over some space combat games, so the term fit. A lot of them are matched to a pre-existing IP to be 'simulated'.

 

The simulationist wants the rules to mimic the TV show / genre / etc. In an RPG, this is probably a subset of narrativist.

The realist wants things to mimic the real world, which most decidedly does not match up with most fantasy or sci-fi worlds.

 

I find that I run towards narrativist (or whatever) for RPGs, but much more towards a mix of gamist and simulationist for a war game, and nothing is an absolute distinction. There's a whole spectrum of preferences. The fact that people are not purely described by a single term does not make that term completely useless as a descriptor.

 

My original point was that 4e was designed from a much more gamist perspective than 3.x, and that influences who prefers it and who doesn't.

 

Programmers cost money - and want to be paid.

 

As a worker in the software industry, I approve this statement. ::):

Edited by klarg1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(What's C:TNE? ::P: )

 

 

A typographical error. ^_^ It should have been C:TNM = Champions: The New Millenium; I was conflating it with Traveller: The New Era (also the cause of a huge edition war). Since corrected; sorry for being even more opaque than usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(What's C:TNE? ::P: )

 

 

A typographical error. ^_^ It should have been C:TNM = Champions: The New Millenium; I was conflating it with Traveller: The New Era (also the cause of a huge edition war). Since corrected; sorry for being even more opaque than usual.

 

Heh - the line was meant (mostly) as a joke. (I actually thought that there might be a Champions: the New Era....)

 

The joke was blaming the players of C:tNE for all the ills of roleplaying, yet not knowing what C:tNE is. (I never said that it was a funny joke....)

 

As for T:tNE... I will forgive it all its faults for Fire, Fusion, & Steel.... I had so much fun playing around with that book. ::D: I never ran a game in the Imperium - but I did run one where Humans first encounter an alien race when it shows up in a Keyhole Drive ship that is enormous and fragile - Tech Level 7, using vacuum valve technology to create a space drive.

 

And they are fleeing a TL 9 foe... that now knows that a Keyhole Drive is possible....

 

The Auld Grump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Programmers cost money - and want to be paid.

 

 

This. I have a degree in CIS, and for various reasons I prefer the hardware side to the development side. I really wish I were as omnipotent as my users think I am, but the truth is any of it (programming or hardware) usually involves a lot of hard, tedious work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

(What's C:TNE? ::P: )

 

 

A typographical error. ^_^ It should have been C:TNM = Champions: The New Millenium; I was conflating it with Traveller: The New Era (also the cause of a huge edition war). Since corrected; sorry for being even more opaque than usual.

 

Heh - the line was meant (mostly) as a joke. (I actually thought that there might be a Champions: the New Era....)

 

The joke was blaming the players of C:tNE for all the ills of roleplaying, yet not knowing what C:tNE is. (I never said that it was a funny joke....)

 

As for T:tNE... I will forgive it all its faults for Fire, Fusion, & Steel.... I had so much fun playing around with that book. ::D: I never ran a game in the Imperium - but I did run one where Humans first encounter an alien race when it shows up in a Keyhole Drive ship that is enormous and fragile - Tech Level 7, using vacuum valve technology to create a space drive.

 

And they are fleeing a TL 9 foe... that now knows that a Keyhole Drive is possible....

 

The Auld Grump

 

 

I liked TNE quite a bit, even though I started playing Traveller when there were only three booklets. It changed the things I disliked about Traveller and kept nearly all the parts I liked. But I understand why a hard core Traveller player might hate it, since it was a very different game and a complete reboot of the universe.

 

I hated C:tNM, because it changed the parts of Champions that I liked and rebooted things that I didn't think needed to be rebooted. Which is to say that it made the game much simpler while taking out too much of the toolbox that made Champs/Hero what it was. But for the people who really didn't like the complexity of the game, it was probably a great thing.

 

Most major edition war controversies seem to revolve around those kinds of design decisions: "If I wanted to play ZZZ, I'd have bought ZZZ, not some bastard love child of ZZZ and YYY." (With ZZZ usually chosen for maximal offensiveness to the game designer and the fans of the new version, of course.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My group currently plays PF. I'm in on it only because I want to game. To me 3.0, 3.5, PF, and 4ed are all terrible RPGs that turned table-top gaming into paper-mmos. It is all about how much of X can I stack and how far can I min/max this. They are all quiet the step back in rpg evolution imho. Luckly after the Rise of the Runelords AP we're playing we're going to move onto Shadowrun. I'm also going to have to take a look at Rolemaster from the OP! I haven't heard of that one before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My group currently plays PF. I'm in on it only because I want to game. To me 3.0, 3.5, PF, and 4ed are all terrible RPGs that turned table-top gaming into paper-mmos. It is all about how much of X can I stack and how far can I min/max this. They are all quiet the step back in rpg evolution imho. Luckly after the Rise of the Runelords AP we're playing we're going to move onto Shadowrun. I'm also going to have to take a look at Rolemaster from the OP! I haven't heard of that one before.

To be fair, you could certainly min/max 1e and 2e. Give a fighter specialized in darts a belt of giant strength and a couple potions of speed, and he can be doing 100+ damage per round by level 7.

 

At 13th level, with a belt of storm giant strength, the same character can attack 12 times a round, with a thac0 of 0, doing a minimum of 17 damage per hit. And that's without magic darts or gauntlets of ogre power. Because then, it's a thac0 of -3, and a minimum damage of 26 per hit. Toss in a robe of stars if that isn't enough damage (thac0 of -5, minimum damage 29). The belt of giant strength can be replaced by a polymorph any object spell, a friendly caster or a ring of spell storing are easy alternates for the haste potions, meaning it isn't even hard optimization to come by.

 

This is a system where the biggest dragon in 1e had 88 hps, and the biggest god had 400. The much discussed of late terrasque had 300 hps and a -3 ac in 1e and 2e, meaning the optimized 13th level fighter will kill him in one round, unless he rolls very poorly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the trick with any edition is to find a group who are more interested in playing than in "winning." Almost anyone with basic level math can figure out how to break the rules of just about any game, because the rules exist. Sadly there are an inordinate number of people whose primary concern is just that. MMOs are full of them. These are the people who do a cost/rewards analysis on everything, and maximize their characters down to the last possible decimal on regeneration, dps, etc. I'm lucky that most of the RPG players I know would rather have fun than be the very bestest at everything. I mean if you're just worried about maximizing what your character can do, the Core Rules of any RPG would be pretty slender. Equipment tables would contain like 4 weapons.

 

I realize World of Warcraft is a game that seems to polarize everyone. People either seem to love it, or think it was the worst thing ever spawned from the pits of Gehenna. I use it here only as an example. I played WoW for right at 6 years, and had a lot of fun. I did a lot of 40 man raids when they were fresh. I started the game right around the time Molten Core went live, and T1 armor was the big thing. The most fun I had in game was toward the end of my playing career when my real life best friend and I spent our time going back through and duoing all of the old raid content just to see it. The rewards were rubbish by that time. We also ran through a lot of storyline content that had previously taken 6-12 people. Just for the stories. He and I spent 3 or 4 weeks farming two of the old zones just for old armor that was so bad you couldn't give it away. But it looked cool.

 

I really like the Pathfinder system, mostly because I feel about Paizo much the way I do about Reaper. They are some of the people in our niche that seem to be getting it right. As long as I feel that way I will keep supporting them. I have no enmity toward WoTC, neither do I have any interest in anything they are currently doing. I think Swords and Wizardry and Basic Fantasy are great systems to start people out on who have never played tabletop. I really like what "renaissance" gaming is doing for the community as a whole.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it's certainly the group, the games listed are pretty much just combat systems. You can't really blame someone for playing that as it is presented, even though it leaves plenty of room for ad-libbed role play and drama. If you want games where min-maxed characters are interesting, try Burning Wheel, Torchbearer, or FATE; in all of those if you don't role-play, and you don't have weaknesses, you actually suck mechanically and will never get anywhere. They aren't everyone's cup of tea but if you have reformable roll-players on your hands, those games will help.

 

Personally I find effective characters fun to play, but it sucks a great deal when you end up with specific characters that are irrationally and bizarrely good at everyone else's specialisation. Niches are very important in DnD since they dictate how spotlight time gets divided up. If you never get a chance to Be The Thief because it turns out a minmaxed cleric is better at it, what's the point of playing the Thief?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tabletop RPGs are a lot like cooking to me and I'm a major foodie.

 

I prefer PF because I can do pretty much anything I want with it. Use Golaran and the preexisting material? Go for it! Write my own world and use the basic game architecture? Go for it!

 

4E on the other hand was just a little too simple for my tastes. That's not a bad thing! It's just not my cup of tea.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Fliptrip
      Hi i pre-ordered a Valeros Iconic fighter v1 at our local game store, i would like to ask if there is assemble required with mini beside the base assembly? Do still need to pin some parts of the mini? Tnx

    • By aku-chan
      Presenting Amiri, she's an Iconic Barbarian from Reapers Pathfinder line.
       
      Had this one a little while, but all the fiddly bits kept putting me off (and I normally like fiddly minis), she turned out to be super fun to paint though.
       
      As always any comments or criticisms are warmly received.
    • By ksbsnowowl
      I painted Goremaw the Great Worm up as a fire-infused purple worm for a unique creature from the Pathfinder setting of Galorion.  I am running the Curse of the Crimson Throne AP in D&D 3.5, and this creature will show up in my game tonight.  It is my first finished creature miniature (I have done some terrain previously), and being a perfectionist, I put in 48 hours of work on him (lots of nooks and crannies, and I don't have an airbrush).
       
      I finished him last night, reaching the "good enough" state, as time didn't allow me to put off varnishing him any further.
       
      I started posting a WIP thread when I started working on him several months ago.  Check it out HERE.
       
      Here are my Cindermaw glamor shots.
       








    • By Nightwing
      Here is the start of pathfinder red, which I’ll be doing as a Sapphire dragon, similar to what i did with the Grenadier Red Dragon II (which I did as  a Ruby dragon) a while ago.
       
      Just base colors here; dark blue/black wash over his entire body, earth wash over the sand, and white statue. I really like how the blue and brown look together. The brown will be lightened up to sand, and the blue will end up a more saturated dark blue. I hope those colors will still look good together...
       
       


    • By Maglok
      Some people might call it Minivember, though technically I had 23 days of vacation and just wanted to paint a mini every day. Some were finishing older minis, some entirely new, some were the size of a nailclipping. I present, my Minivember.
       

       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       

  • Who's Online   24 Members, 3 Anonymous, 35 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...