| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| froglegg |
Posted - 03 Jul 2010 : 18:49:53
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0786956291/ref=pe_606_16192250_pe_ar_t5
Couldn't they have used a new cover or something instead of playing on an old schooler's nostalgia? Or am I getting ill over nothing?
John |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| froglegg |
Posted - 31 Oct 2010 : 13:28:05
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
So which part of the computer did you use to play?
LOL Good one Mr. James. Maybe I should have said it would make for a good one like NWN. 
John
P.S.
The bigest pull for me was the fact that it looked so much like the Mentzer red box. I know, I know it makes no sence but it did. I can't come up with an explaination it just did.
As a marketing ploy it worked on me, because I said I was not going to get it and yet there I was in line at Wal-mart with the red box.
Hats off to WizBro! It worked you got me to give up some cash.  And you got me to look over again at the 4th edition and if that was the reason for the marketing ploy of the red box, well it worked. 
John
|
| Matt James |
Posted - 31 Oct 2010 : 12:15:43
So which part of the computer did you use to play? |
| froglegg |
Posted - 31 Oct 2010 : 01:29:27
[quote="froglegg"][quote="robertsconley"]It does a good job of taking a total novice and teaching how to play D&D 4e.
Of course when I got it. I put the box to proper use.
[imgurl=]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mFjy4EWzmtg/TIw388Pb27I/AAAAAAAABCg/UZrGvz0RHg4/s320/redboxfix.jpg[/imgurl][/quote]
I saw it in Wal-mart and I got it. :oops: After I said I would not give wizbro any more of my money. :oops: To me it makes for one heck of a computer/video game, kind of like NWN. But not a game I would want to play using pen/paper. Notice I said to me, this is how I feel about it. Others may just love the whole 4 edition D&D game and if you do I wish you good gaming :bigthumbsup: ! It is just not for me.
On a side note I will also be using the box just as the fellow did in his post.
John[/quote]
John |
| Diffan |
Posted - 01 Oct 2010 : 03:58:01
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Snip....
So, its all subjective, and everyone draws their own personal 'line in the sand' somewhere. Many of us did it back in 1e, or 2e - 4e just crossed the threshold of more people's personal tolerance levels for change then the previous editions did. When you try to feed someone too much at once, they choke on it - its that simple. 
Live, love, laugh.... and give Essentials a try.
I haven't figured out what world I will run it in, or even if I will bother with a world at all (that's REAL old-school), but I know if we don't let them know the new direction is GOOD, then we won't be seeing any more new FR lore ever again, except in novels.
My friend and I were having a conversation about the Essentials books, and we both agreed that if WotC had went this route FIRST and slowly adapted the system for more modifications with the PHB/PH2/PH3 and all the Power books it would've went WAAAY more smoothly than the total 180 that did happen. But I guess thats why they say hind-sight is always 20/20.
And I'm glad your giving the Essentials a try. I re-did my current lvl 10 paladin into a Knight and I'm really excited to try it out. The whole stance + Melee Basic Attack is so simple and easy to get into that it's not alot of paperwork. And it's sorta fun to try and adapt previous material for the new stuff. My Knight went with the Sword Marshal paragon path instead of the standard Stalward Knight so I at least get a few attack powers to liven it up a bit. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 01 Oct 2010 : 03:32:10
First Edition Unearthed Arcana might be seen as "Essentials" even...but hey, whatever floats someone's boat. Personally, I liked 1e Barbarians over a 2e Fighter with a "Barbarian Kit"...gimme my dang 20 Hit Points at first level man! |
| Matt James |
Posted - 01 Oct 2010 : 03:20:30
2e was a mess when it came to rules updates and system changes. The only saving grace for me in relation to 2e is that it was the first edition of D&D I was introduced to. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 30 Sep 2010 : 21:34:53
I never ran into any problems going from 3e to 3.5 - not even the slightest little hiccup. To me, it was just a bunch of rules-clarifications and tweaks, and I couldn't even understand why they called it 'another edition'. If anything, Pathfinder is more like the real 3.5
So your point is............?
Through the life-cycle of 1e and 2e, there were FAR MORE rules changes within the edition. How many different versions of Fatigue did we have in 2e? Five?
NOT calling Essentials a new edition is simply a matter of verbiage and personal preference. The term is applied by the company making the product, based on their own sensibilities - it is meaningless. I have seen a number of 'new editions' of rules that weren't new editions at all (T&T comes to mind) - the companies involved simply applied that moniker to their latest re-vamp of the rules book, with whatever errata that had grown over the years. They called it that to get folks to buy it, so they would think they were getting something new and different.
So, using that argument, Essentials is NOT, IMHO, a new edition... but neither was 3.5. 4e was completely different from all D&D rules that had gone before, so that truly was a new edition.
Oh, and 2e was just 1e's 'collected errata' and optional rules - it wasn't really a new edition of the game at all. So far there have been only four versions I would quantify with the term 'edition' - OD&D/Basic, 1e/2e, 3e/3.5, and 4e/Essentials. The changes within an edition are just cosmetic, for the most part, or options, which really shouldn't count.
And all of that is just IMHO, which is subjective, and everyone will have their own idea of what constitutes a new edition, making these types of arguments irrelevant. As silly as trying to nail-down the exact meaning of 'new setting', or 'retcon'.
Is the new star Trek a retcon? It sure as hell looks like one, but guess what? By giving an in-story explanation (time-paradox continuity displacement), you remove the ability of fans to point fingers. Old Spock is from the original continuity, which gives it psuedo-substance, and therefor doesn't count as a retcon.
And the same goes for FR, for the most part. If the retcon happened within the storyline, it isn't a retcon. The spellplague and Abeir covered most of the perceived retcons, and 'unreliable narration' covers everything else. The few kinks still around are easily explainable (I've explained-away at least a dozen myself).
So, its all subjective, and everyone draws their own personal 'line in the sand' somewhere. Many of us did it back in 1e, or 2e - 4e just crossed the threshold of more people's personal tolerance levels for change then the previous editions did. When you try to feed someone too much at once, they choke on it - its that simple.
Live, love, laugh.... and give Essentials a try.
I haven't figured out what world I will run it in, or even if I will bother with a world at all (that's REAL old-school), but I know if we don't let them know the new direction is GOOD, then we won't be seeing any more new FR lore ever again, except in novels.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 30 Sep 2010 : 19:30:49
I'd have to agree with Matt. Since buying the Essentials book Heroes of the Fallen Lands, I don't see any problems that come between the Essentials line and the Core line. All are compatable with one another except for Hybrids. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 30 Sep 2010 : 16:30:24
Game system design and architecture clearly shows the massive difference between 3.0/3.5 and 4th/Essentials. It's not even apples and oranges-- it's apples and giraffes :D
People have found a perceived weakness and are trying to poke their finger through it. |
| froglegg |
Posted - 29 Sep 2010 : 01:05:44
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
So far, Essentials sounds like it has a lot of potential... I just hope they don't screw it up.
I wonder?
John |
| Markustay |
Posted - 21 Sep 2010 : 17:59:09
2e had several 'DM-only' sourcebooks, like The Complete Book of Necromancers, which is something you didn't see in 3e (unless you include the Setting Guide and DMG).
That tome, BTW, was good mix of rules and lore, and actually had quite a bit of FR-specific fluff, for a core book. That's the best kind - a splat that gives us new lore, and a good, healthy mix of new rules built around that lore. This goes in accordance to what Misc said about properly built PrCs, which Sage also agreed with.
Rules just for rules-sake have little value, IMHO. I can make-up fluff as well as the next guy, but when there are hundreds of PrCs I will probably never see used in my games, why bother? Oft-times, it is the fluff that goes with the PrC that gets players and DMs alike interested in it. Otherwise, its just a table of numbers and a few quirky abilities, and all you are doing is rolling dice.
Personally, I don't think they went far enough with the PrC concept. It started out well, but then became a default page-count filler, with TONS of redundancy. I'd like to see a system with four (Five if you want to separate Psionics) base classes, and EVERYTHING else be a PrC built-upon the prerequisite skills and multi-classing. For instance, Paladin shouldn't be a class - it should be a PrC option from multi-classing fighter and cleric. Something similar to how sub-classes worked in 1e/2e, I suppose.
A system like that, coupled with 'backgrounds' (ie, the Barbarian), 'Talents' (musical ability, mechanical, etc...) and secondary attributes (Voice quality, Appearance, etc..) would be ideal, IMHO.
So far, Essentials sounds like it has a lot of potential... I just hope they don't screw it up. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 21 Sep 2010 : 04:49:14
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
If you want to say that the rule changes aren't significant enough to warrant an "edition change", that's fine. The quote above is simply untrue. I direct you to earlier in this thread, in which I linked to articles on the WoTC site which specifically stated that there are rule changes in Essentials which "replaces or over-writes what has come in previous installments of 4E."
Technically, those changes would've happend to 4E regardless of the Essentials line debut. The fact that they happen before the line was released means that they wanted people using the up-dates rules for the Magic Tables and most of the July up-dates before they bought the Red Box. Now, it does seem strange that they released this right before Essentials and it looks like they were implemented because of Essentials, but it's just not true. The Essentials product uses the up to date rule system, yet had it NOT debuted this month, I'm fairly certain the rule changes still would've been pushed through. Maybe not right now, but definitly before the next up-date scheduled in October. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Sep 2010 : 22:12:16
quote:
Originally posted by froglegg
In 4th edition the fighter has thoes powers if you will then in the red box the fighter dosent have them anymore. That = a revision or 4.5 just like the ranger in 3.0 gained stuff in 3.5 gaining or loseing it is a revision. So essentials = 4.5
John
The Red Box fighter is a fighter in name only. The "fighter" is a Parent class, meaning that the sub-classes in the Red Box (Slayer class and Knight class) have their own distinct flavor and abilites. They also have the option to take PHB/Martial Power Utility powers and feats designed for the Fighter. In addition, they can take Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies with the Fighter as a prerequisite.
Also, the Slayer is a "striker" first and fore-most. The slayer and the knight do NOT have the ability to "mark" a target and thus aren't as sticky as a natural-PHB fighter. There's a large contrast to the classes in Heroes of the Fallen Lands and the Red Box to the original classes in the PHB but they share those previous class titles (fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard) to gain the additional benefits previous source material can provide. Think of them as fully hedged out Builds from the ground up that has Fighter-esque elements, yet they are vastly different and do not attempt to re-create what the Figher (or any previous class for that matter) could do from the beginning.
In fact, I could easily see one character being a Slayer, attempting to do lots of damage while another character is a dwarf "brawler" build fighter from Martial Power 2 in the same party. The brawler grapples up an enemy and drags him back to the slayer where he delivers the killing blows. The fact that both classes can work in tandum clearly demonstrates that it's not a revision, but an addition to the previously published material. |
| froglegg |
Posted - 19 Sep 2010 : 21:39:14
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by froglegg
Now try and say that this is not 4.5 now.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_271/8109-Red-Box-Renaissance
John
Pretty easy, it's not 4.5. The reasons behind the designes for Essentials is just what the article said, it's attempting to draw in older fans with it's different mechanics while keeping it simple for newer players to gain entry to. None (yes, none) of the content in Essentials replaces or over-writes what has come in previous installments of 4E. Yes, there are changes to how certain classes work, but we even saw that with Psionics and their power point system. Psionics don't have any Encounter powers in any of the classes....yet it's not a revision.
There have been some changes to the rules just prior to the Essentials making their debut, but these changes would've happened regardless of the Essentials coming out or not. So, if you could, point out to me how this could be an edition revision akin to 3.0 to 3.5?
In 4th edition the fighter has thoes powers if you will then in the red box the fighter dosent have them anymore. That = a revision or 4.5 just like the ranger in 3.0 gained stuff in 3.5 gaining or loseing it is a revision. So essentials = 4.5
John |
| The Sage |
Posted - 19 Sep 2010 : 04:43:42
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
Prestige Classes that were written properly for the Realms melded lore and mechanics. In other words, well written PrCs aren't just all rules: instead they teach you about some aspect of the setting lore and allow your to better fit your character around that lore.
I'm inclined to agree.
On the rare occasion when I did actually partake of 3e Realms rules, I often found myself being drawn more fully to those few PrCs that offered a competent mix of both rules and lore. It was a refreshing take from the more "dry" and "static" feel of the heavily rules-only PrCs that peppered many 3e D&D books in the early days of the new edition.
|
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 19 Sep 2010 : 04:07:54
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Unlike 3E, crunch had only a small part in 2E sourcebooks.
On average you're going to get more lore from a random 2E book than from a 3E book. But that's not because rules crunch had a minimalist presence in 2E Realms sourcebooks to begin with.
The 2E Realms library, lore-laiden though it was, is not something that was just lore with a side helping of rules. Not in the slightest. 2E Realms sourcebooks were filled with mechanics, spells and magic items. They also introducted combersome, often broken and bizare rules to the AD&D game that 3E thankfully did away with.
Although in the instance of the Elven High Mage (and High Magic in general) the back-of-the-book Prestige Class for the EHM was really a rather pathetic—seemingly last minute—example of pure rules that didn't improve on what came before in 2E.
I'm guessing that's a good example of what you (Wooly) remember as the worst of the rules presence in 3E books. It's true there were other PrCs like the EHM that were just as bad.
Prestige Classes that were written properly for the Realms melded lore and mechanics. In other words, well written PrCs aren't just all rules: instead they teach you about some aspect of the setting lore and allow you to better fit your character around that lore.
The PrCs written in Lost Empires of Faerùn are examples of how it's done right (on average they get a 4 page write up each). |
| idilippy |
Posted - 18 Sep 2010 : 23:57:25
I don't know about that, the Volo's guide books seem to be almost all lore. I just flipped through Volo's Guide to the Dalelands and there is one new Priest spell and 7 magic items for a 236 page book. Volo's Guide to the North is similarly bare, 12 pages at the end, out of 237, describe a Wardmist, 2 monsters, 4 magic items, and 3 spells. Of course those are dedicated lore books, not every book is going to be quite so filled with lore. Code of the Harpers then is about 2/3rds lore to 1/3rd mechanics if you count the pages of NPCs to be about half lore and half mechanics, so if you counted those fully as mechanics, ignoring the pages of story and information, you could maybe go as high as 50/50 or you could call the stats and magic item descriptions in them more lore than mechanics and get a split of closer to 75/25 lore.
I'm not going to filter through all my other 2e Realms books right this moment but so far the admittedly skewed Volo's Guide books and the typical, in my opinion, Code of the Harpers seem to back the high lore to mechanics ratio that is claimed. I don't know if it's a big enough discrepancy compared to 3e and 3.5e books to be considered significant but 2e does seem to have an edge considering they have a series of books, the Volo's Guide series, that is almost completely devoted to lore. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Sep 2010 : 23:26:38
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Who needs more splat books? I want lots of lore, like they gave us with 1 and 2E. Not the endless parade of rules that was 3.x.
2E especially was loaded with books filled with rules. Lots and lots of rules.
Yes, the Realms saw several books that were lore laiden, but those books were also chock full of rules. Lots and lots of rules, some of which broke the game or were so exclusive as to be DM only and not for the players. (Can you say "Elven High Magic"? Can you say "Specialty Priest"? Can you say "Spell Mantle"? So can I.)
3E by itself had lots of rulebooks. No different than 2E there. Realms sourcebooks in 3E had lots of rules too, but they were also filled with a lot of lore.
It's a meme—and a false one at that—to characterize 2E as mostly lore and 3E as mostly rules.
Unlike 3E, crunch had only a small part in 2E sourcebooks. Usually it was a few pages of spells and magical items, and maybe some monsters. In 3E, most of the sourcebooks had a sizable portion given over to PrCs, feats, and statblocks. And if there were spells and monsters, then that was even less room for lore. |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 18 Sep 2010 : 22:54:03
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Who needs more splat books? I want lots of lore, like they gave us with 1 and 2E. Not the endless parade of rules that was 3.x.
2E especially was loaded with books filled with rules. Lots and lots of rules.
Yes, the Realms saw several books that were lore laiden, but those books were also chock full of rules. Lots and lots of rules, some of which broke the game or were so exclusive as to be DM only and not for the players. (Can you say "Elven High Magic"? Can you say "Specialty Priest"? Can you say "Spell Mantle"? So can I.)
3E by itself had lots of rulebooks. No different than 2E there. Realms sourcebooks in 3E had lots of rules too, but they were also filled with a lot of lore.
It's a meme—and a false one at that—to characterize 2E as mostly lore and 3E as mostly rules. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 18 Sep 2010 : 20:34:16
quote:
Originally posted by froglegg
Now try and say that this is not 4.5 now.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_271/8109-Red-Box-Renaissance
John
Pretty easy, it's not 4.5. The reasons behind the designes for Essentials is just what the article said, it's attempting to draw in older fans with it's different mechanics while keeping it simple for newer players to gain entry to. None (yes, none) of the content in Essentials replaces or over-writes what has come in previous installments of 4E. Yes, there are changes to how certain classes work, but we even saw that with Psionics and their power point system. Psionics don't have any Encounter powers in any of the classes....yet it's not a revision.
There have been some changes to the rules just prior to the Essentials making their debut, but these changes would've happened regardless of the Essentials coming out or not. So, if you could, point out to me how this could be an edition revision akin to 3.0 to 3.5? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 18 Sep 2010 : 20:31:01
Nice article, thanks for posting it.
Sounds like a new edition to me, no more or less so then 3e/3.5, or even 1e/2e. An 'incremental' edition, mind you, not a full one. I personally think of 2e as 1.5 these days.
I respect Mike Mearls, and purchased several of products he worked on when he was still with Monte Cook - too bad they headed for different camps.
That article, if nothing else, has pushed me toward using Essentials to teach the game to a younger audience. I have always been about bringing new players to the table, which is something I found hard to do in the 3e era. |
| froglegg |
Posted - 18 Sep 2010 : 19:52:23
Now try and say that this is not 4.5 now.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_271/8109-Red-Box-Renaissance
John |
| Markustay |
Posted - 18 Sep 2010 : 19:29:22
ALL Paizo Pathfinder/Golarion books contain lore about their world, which is why it is ever-evolving. The adventures themselves are not cheesy 'dungeon crawls' harkening back to the early days of RPGing, but rather well thought-out adventure arcs that take place in a vibrant, living world.
There's something to be said about those nostalgic early days of D&D... but do we really want to go back to Coca-Cola Golems and Keebler Elves?
The genre has matured, and so has its players. Most 'old timers' prefer a rich tapestry and heavy RP.
But we were all kids once, and we liked to just get to the damn dungeon and kill some stuff, so we could get 'goodies' and lots of EP. The story didn't matter back then - getting 'stuff' did.
And it is from that point of view that the new D&D game was designed. Hasbro is a TOY company - its target demographic are children. Paizo doesn't want children - it wants adults to play their games, and they built their structure around pleasing the already-existing fanbase.
There is room for both. In 20 years those '4e kids' will want something more substantial, just as we did. WotC's drive to bring in new blood is a worthy effort, and I applaud them for it. Maybe by then Paizo will be running out of fresh ideas, and someone new will take up the mantle - who knows? So long as people keep dreaming, there is room for everybody.
NOW, although I think WotC is doing something positive, I think they need to look up a certain word in the dictionary...
ADVERTISING.
Learn it.... LIVE it. |
| idilippy |
Posted - 18 Sep 2010 : 17:05:27
I think Wooly was referring to Paizo's campaign setting world of Golarion which has had numerous lore-based supplements published for it rather than the Pathfinder rulebooks themselves. Also, the Classic X revisited line of books by Paizo, from what I've heard, are more about lore than mechanics though I haven't gotten the chance to read them all so I may be mistaken about that. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Sep 2010 : 17:01:56
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If it wasn't a viable strategy, Paizo wouldn't be doing nearly as well as it's doing now.
And if you don't give a rat's behind about the lore, you're prolly not going out of your way to play in a setting that is defined by the volume of it's lore.
I was under the impression that much of Paizo's content was rules-driven, attempting to refurbish and polish the 3.5 ruleset. Much of their supplements like the Advanced Player's Guide, PF Core rulebook, etc...is just more rules (which I'm fine with) but it does take priority over their Lore.
And last time I checked D&D was a game. Involving the lore into a gaming supplement is nice and all, but to some people the "crunch" defines if the supplement is worth buying or not. I feel WotC didn't have much to offer in the way of "crunch" without further creating disparity in the rules so they went in another direction. Creating books with nothing but lore, history, and story-plots is nice and all but I don't think it would sell to the the general public.
Paizo has built an entire campaign setting, with monthly sourcebooks for that setting. The Pathfinder RPG came out after the Campaign Setting and many sourcebooks. And like the Realms sourcebooks of 1E and 2E, Paizo's sourcebooks are mostly lore with just a little bit of rules -- they are not like the FR books of 3E, where a sizable portion of the book was given over to rules and statblocks.
D&D is a game, but your game has to be set somewhere. If you're buying D&D material for a setting, then you want more info about the setting. If you're just playing a generic and/or homebrew setting, then stuff published for another setting isn't of much use to you.
So make splatbooks for people that want rules, and setting-specific sourcebooks for people that want a detailed setting. This worked for TSR for years, it worked for WotC until Hasbro got involved, and it's working for Paizo now. And it worked for other game publishers, too. Books with "nothing but lore, history, and story-plots" have sold well in the past for TSR/WotC, they've sold well for other companies, and it's working well for Paizo now. So it's obviously a viable business model.
Just because it's not what WotC is using now doesn't mean it's a bad model. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 18 Sep 2010 : 16:47:18
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If it wasn't a viable strategy, Paizo wouldn't be doing nearly as well as it's doing now.
And if you don't give a rat's behind about the lore, you're prolly not going out of your way to play in a setting that is defined by the volume of it's lore.
I was under the impression that much of Paizo's content was rules-driven, attempting to refurbish and polish the 3.5 ruleset. Much of their supplements like the Advanced Player's Guide, PF Core rulebook, etc...is just more rules (which I'm fine with) but it does take priority over their Lore.
And last time I checked D&D was a game. Involving the lore into a gaming supplement is nice and all, but to some people the "crunch" defines if the supplement is worth buying or not. I feel WotC didn't have much to offer in the way of "crunch" without further creating disparity in the rules so they went in another direction. Creating books with nothing but lore, history, and story-plots is nice and all but I don't think it would sell to the the general public. |
| idilippy |
Posted - 18 Sep 2010 : 16:35:21
Then I'm not the only one who doesn't like that change, that's good. I guess it makes sense with WotC's whole spiel about every setting being core so the D&D part is more important to them than the Forgotten Realms part, but I like a more prominent Forgotten Realms logo. Still, that's not enough to hurt my enjoyment of the novels on its own, it just makes them jump out at me less when I see them on a bookshelf. |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 18 Sep 2010 : 15:54:31
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Indeed. I'm still happily purchasing most everything that comes under the Dungeons and Dragons banner. I won't turn away from worthwhile published lore just because I'm using my own 17+ year-old homebrew rules-system. Granted, it's unlikely I'll ever use most of the rules-stuff now being published for 4e -- but I'll eagerly snap up worthwhile setting material if I can see ways in which it'll work with my own campaigns.
Speaking of the "Dungeons and Dragons " banner.....it still irks me that on the novels the main banner is now huge kittens D&dD, while the forgotten forgotten realms tag is almost imperceptible! |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Sep 2010 : 15:43:32
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Who needs more splat books? I want lots of lore, like they gave us with 1 and 2E. Not the endless parade of rules that was 3.x.
Yep, and that marketing strategy worked wonders for TSR. And for those that could give a rat's behind about the Lore?
Yeah, and it kept them in business for years, until they got stupid and tried doing too much. If it wasn't a viable strategy, Paizo wouldn't be doing nearly as well as it's doing now.
And if you don't give a rat's behind about the lore, you're prolly not going out of your way to play in a setting that is defined by the volume of it's lore. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 18 Sep 2010 : 15:07:26
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Who needs more splat books? I want lots of lore, like they gave us with 1 and 2E. Not the endless parade of rules that was 3.x.
Yep, and that marketing strategy worked wonders for TSR. And for those that could give a rat's behind about the Lore? |
|
|
