| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Markustay |
Posted - 31 Dec 2012 : 20:02:57
So I've been hanging out over on the Paizo forums the past few days, and I just realized something odd (at least, odd to me). DMs looking for help building certain character types (in other words, trying to convert something they like from elsewhere and have it fit within the PF framework of rules). Now, I understand perfectly when players want to do this, but DMs? Did I miss something?
I grew up with OD&D, then AD&D and then 2e. In those editions a DM could use whatever he wanted - he didn't need to justify anything within the rules. Now, I realize that 3e handed the players an unprecedented (and unnecessary) amount of power and flexibility, but did this work both ways? Did the creation of rules for every little thing also mean that DMs had to fall into that same framework?
I noticed back when Eric Boyb was working on his Daggerford stuff he was looking for some 3e rules to explain-away a power an NPC had, and I recall thinking (at that time) WHY? Why does a DM have to explain anything an NPC can do? Was this some sort of unforeseen (and undesired) side-effect to giving the players more rules structure to work within?
The folks on the Paizo forums seem to think nothing of this - that DMs should/have to explain within game-terms how certain things are possible. Back in 1e/2e that NPC Eric was working on had that power and no-one questioned it. Why did it become a problem in the 3e rules? Did the designers accidentally break something important to the game? Whilst trying to give players more power, did they strip the DM of his?
This is just something I think they need to think about moving forward. This is more of a 'D&D' thing (rules) then a setting thing, but I think if FR is going to be the flagship setting, and gets tied directly to the rules (as Golarion and Pathfinder are), then they need to consider this point. I think part of the problem with the 3e material was the desire to explain everything, which had the side-effect of stealing away some of the setting's mystery. If we try to slap rules onto every little thing, the universe becomes just a little bit smaller, and not so wondrous.
Its like when Jack Sparrow was looking at the dead Kraken - the beast was trying to kill him, but he realized the world was lessened for its loss. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 03 Jan 2013 : 18:03:42
On the bright side, I completely agree with the sentiments about 'failing', and feel this is key to 5e.
I have said at least once on these boards that I love when people correct me, which on-the-surface may seem out of character. Here's the deal - I learn NOTHING when I am always right. I only learn when I am wrong, and someone points me to the correct information. That doesn't annoy me - it makes me 'better' in the long run. I appreciate that (so long as the arguments don't become condescending, which I cannot abide).
We do not learn from our successes, we learn form our mistakes. Thats not just human nature, thats broad-spectrum evolution at its finest. ATM, Paizo isn't really learning a darned thing, are they? They probably got all their 'smarts' when they worked during the TSR/Paizo transition period (and if you look at who excelled, and who fell by the wayside, you can tell who did the most 'learning' among individuals). On the other hand, WotC has been handed a few harsh lessons, and they now have "the eye of the tiger" (apologies to Sylvester Stalone). They need this victory so bad they can taste it.
Thats good for us, and good for them. This is why I have high hopes for 5th edition, both Realms and rules. I now consider 4e just some good schoolin' - a 'beta' if you will - and now we will get the edition they were really after.  |
| Diffan |
Posted - 03 Jan 2013 : 17:14:26
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Also, what’s wrong with DMs failing, and learning from their mistakes? (This is a problem with 4E, in my opinion, because the system seems to not want DMs to fail.)
I don't feel baited, all is well! 
There's nothing wrong with failing. Failing teaches important aspects to both the DM and the group. To me, the more important question is: By what margin did that failure occur or was this a failure of rolling and chance (which is the best sort because it's done completely unbiased) or not enougth knowledge of the system? If the failure is purely based on what happend at the table due to bad rolls or bad luck, hey that's a part of the fun of the game. If it's because I threw something at the party that was ridiculously hard when it wasn't mean to be that's a worse case scenario, IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
That’s how it worked for me. Over the years I played with monsters by giving them class levels, advancing their hit dice, borrowing magic items from 3rd party publishers and letting players introduce material from same to see what worked and what didn’t. (FWIW, the worst culprits when it came to unbalanced rules were WotC; right after they fired or lost the core people who built 3E, the next wave of people to take over really did a number on balance in the brown colored, soft cover class splatbooks).
True, and really I don't ban anything from my games (with notable exception), 3PP stuff included. But I guess I'm speaking from someone who basically started DM'ing with 3E. And I think that the rules could've been more helpful in lessening the mistakes I made because It wasn't through more learning of the rules, it was learing what to avoid that the rules provided that made me better.
BTW, most of the over-powered stuff in those original spalts prior to the "Complete" series were changed a LOT to provide a bit more balance. So of course Trial and Error are going to happen and often times unforseen consequences happen that force fate for the Players in ways that can be either GREAT or deadly. The thing is, rules should be there to help better guide DMs so that their mistakes aren't as costly as an unforseen TPK (I use this as just an example).
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
The 5th level wizard you wrote about: to me that’s not an example of a problem with the game, it’s an example of a DM learning what works and what doesn’t. TPKs happen, in any edition.
I do wonder though, about that NPC: did the NPC have all his spells cast ahead of time? In my experience an encounter with a spell caster can vary dramatically based on what spells are cast ahead of time and the initial encounter distance.
Did he know the party was coming/did they blunder into the mage unprepared? Did he have plenty of room to maneuver? Did they flub their rolls and/or were they unlucky?
It was quite a few years since that happened. If I remember correctly, he had been killing people in town that had slighted him and he bad been doing it amongst the "mist" that rolled off the moore at night. So when the PCs came looking, he was aware they were present, but not enought to prepare.
I think he got off his Shield spell prior to the battle starting. In the rounds that followed, Blur and then Obscuring Mist followed and then he used everything else to pump Wraithstrike + Power Attack. I beleive he killed two PCs and the 3rd was near dead when the NPC died. But all I wanted from him was to drain a LOT of their healing magic and resources such as some scrolls and some limited charges from a wand so they weren't so prepared to go against the main antagonist of the game.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
That for a DM to keep an eye on all those things from a rules-book sense can be daunting, but to then change it based on what seems cool is going to throw what sense of balance there is out the window.
I agree, it is daunting, but it’s also necessary.
As to the rest, we’ll have to agree to disagree. It’s never been my experience that adding to and modifying NPCs always/automatically turn the game on its head, nor do I think DMs tweaking the rules always results in worst case scenarios where the party is obliterated (I say this because it seems like your examples are always of killer combos that leave hapless players out to dry).
Since my early days I've grown to be much better and I can mitigate circumstances MUCH better now. I don't even hold onto the notions of making NPCs and MOnsters 100% "legit" because I have a good sense of what's broken and what's not as do my players. But it took a lot of time and reading to get there for us. I used a few notable combos that really have stuck out in the previous years I've played v3.5 but I admit that they're more the exception to the rule instead of the "norm".
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Are there better ways to do it? Possibly. I don’t think 4E is the right way, but to each his own.
I feel like I’m fighting an edition war, so I’m done with this scroll.
True, 4E provided only one way of handling stuff and everyone's opinion will vary due to play styles and specific attracions to one's own favored edition. I hope I haven't conveyed any sense of Edition Warring since the two being currently discussed are ones I quite rather enjoy playing. I mearly point out difference in game design and my experiences with both, not to say that one is better than the other. I do prefer 4E's more streamlined elements to specific cases (like Bull Rush, for example) but that's just personal preference and not some sort of attempt to say that it holds anything more than opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I never intended this to turn into an edition war. Damn.
I was just thinking abut what I want out of a D&D edition (rules and setting), and then I wanted to know what others wanted/expected. Part of that, of course, was pointing-out what we did and didn't like about past editions. I hope that we are way past the whole 'edition wars' thing by now.
So far we got:
1) Rules = Good
2) Too much Rules = Bad
3) Believing the Rules are the whole game = Bad
4) The DM should be able to 'fudge' things whenever he wants, so long as it enhances everyone's enjoyment of the game
Agreed! Again, I hope I haven't off put anyone or made people feel I'm trying to get into an Edition War. That's not my intent. And as for points 1-4, I agree with all of them. Point 4 is, as BlackAce said, sort of a wishy-washy subject but I think most DMs are conscious of the fact that the rules help the game, not define it and when the rules get in the way of "fun", they need to die in a fire.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And I truly believe the 4e design team was trying to answer these exact points, and simplify the game so everyone could get back to good, old-fashioned D&D RPing. Where they went wrong is touching FR - there they 'fixed' that which wasn't broken (based on non-fans perceptions of the setting). I think if they left the Realms basically alone, with just a few edition-specific tweaks, 4e may have actually been a (greater?) success. If you think about what Gygax said in my above quote, then the rules-edition shouldn't matter at all. Hell, you could play a great RPG using the CLUE rules if you are an good DM (and I have added RP elements to my CLUE games... try it, its fun).
This isn't about editions, its about what makes D&D fun.
While I disagree with you on their "fix" of the Realms (I liked nearly 90% of the changes) I absolutely agree with you on the rest of the sentiment. The rules of any edition help spark creativity that's already there. They should help players and DMs in ways to interact with the world and provide mechanical benefits for things that seem like a lot of fun. It's not really needed, as Gygax implies, but it's nice when it fits there properly. I remember many times when a rules-module come out that fits a character theme or concept or idea perfectly because, for some reason, it somehow gives the character more depth and immersion to a degree. Sure, I could always reflavor and make it up and there's nothing wrong with that at all, but when your idea is given some level of creedence from a mechanical perspective, it sorta just.....clicks. |
| BlackAce |
Posted - 03 Jan 2013 : 13:55:05
For me point 4 is the most difficult to address in a rules system. Ultimately, how it's used or abused is going to be in the hands of the DM. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 03 Jan 2013 : 13:24:09
I never intended this to turn into an edition war. Damn.
I was just thinking about what I want out of a D&D edition (rules and setting), and then I wanted to know what others wanted/expected? Part of that, of course, was pointing-out what we did and didn't like about past editions. I hope that we are way past the whole 'edition wars' thing by now.
So far we got:
1) Rules = Good
2) Too much Rules = Bad
3) Believing the Rules are the whole game = Bad
4) The DM should be able to 'fudge' things whenever he wants, so long as it enhances everyone's enjoyment of the game
And I truly believe the 4e design team was trying to answer these exact points, and simplify the game so everyone could get back to good, old-fashioned D&D RPing. Where I feel they went wrong is touching FR - there they 'fixed' that which wasn't broken (based on non-fans perceptions of the setting). I think if they left the Realms basically alone, with just a few edition-specific tweaks, 4e may have actually been a (greater?) success. IMHO, the setting (and probably the rules) were over-engineered, if anything. They tried too hard to make everything different, and it shows. If you think about what Gygax said in my above quote, then the rules-edition shouldn't matter at all. Hell, you could play a great RPG using the CLUE rules if you are a good DM (and I have added RP elements to my CLUE games... try it, its fun).
This isn't about editions, its about what makes D&D fun.
*A few corrections, and also re-worded some stuff to sound more neutral |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 03 Jan 2013 : 11:10:51
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So while I agree that ad-hoc'ing features and abilities at low levels is easier and should be encouraged, a DM needs more adequate information and Rules Mastery at the later stages in the game so that he doesn't over-shoot (or under-shoot) the level and frame of the thing he's creating.
I’m not trying to bait you here, but I have to ask: don’t you gain that experience by running a game into mid/late levels?
Also, what’s wrong with DMs failing, and learning from their mistakes? (This is a problem with 4E, in my opinion, because the system seems to not want DMs to fail.)
That’s how it worked for me. Over the years I played with monsters by giving them class levels, advancing their hit dice, borrowing magic items from 3rd party publishers and letting players introduce material from same to see what worked and what didn’t. (FWIW, the worst culprits when it came to unbalanced rules were WotC; right after they fired or lost the core people who built 3E, the next wave of people to take over really did a number on balance in the brown colored, soft cover class splatbooks).
The 5th level wizard you wrote about: to me that’s not an example of a problem with the game, it’s an example of a DM learning what works and what doesn’t. TPKs happen, in any edition.
I do wonder though, about that NPC: did the NPC have all his spells cast ahead of time? In my experience an encounter with a spell caster can vary dramatically based on what spells are cast ahead of time and the initial encounter distance.
Did he know the party was coming/did they blunder into the mage unprepared? Did he have plenty of room to maneuver? Did they flub their rolls and/or were they unlucky?
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
That for a DM to keep an eye on all those things from a rules-book sense can be daunting, but to then change it based on what seems cool is going to throw what sense of balance there is out the window.
I agree, it is daunting, but it’s also necessary.
As to the rest, we’ll have to agree to disagree. It’s never been my experience that adding to and modifying NPCs always/automatically turn the game on its head, nor do I think DMs tweaking the rules always results in worst case scenarios where the party is obliterated (I say this because it seems like your examples are always of killer combos that leave hapless players out to dry).
Are there better ways to do it? Possibly. I don’t think 4E is the right way, but to each his own.
I feel like I’m fighting an edition war, so I’m done with this scroll. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 02 Jan 2013 : 17:23:27
quote:
Originally posted by BlackAce
*Nods* It really does. I personally wouldn't consider someone a 'Rules Lawyer' just because they employed their rules knowledge. It is, like you suggest, very much a case of the latter, where a person is using their rules knowledge in a tenaciously pedantic manner or in order to get their own way, very often against the spirit of the rule.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
A 'Ruleslawyer' isn't necessarily a rules-expert. To me, its a person who is a rules-expert, AND conveniently forgets certain rules when it is in their favor to do so. They don't just know the rules, they weild them like a club.
Good, we're in agreement that someone with extensive knowledge of the rules isn't a ruleslawyer, only those who attempt to manipulate the situation where rules are vague for their own purposes and not in the spirit of the game. Glad we cleared that air way.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
As for the '3e mindset'.... {sigh}... I think thats an outgrowth of the younger generation growing up with video games. I hate to blame everything on VG's, but so many preconceptions about D&D come form kids playing RPVGs.
For instance, when I started a game for my 11 and 15 year olds about a week back, my 11 year old asked me how he and his brother were going to meet. I was a bit confused, and said you meet in the town, or you could have known each other for years. He answered, "You mean we have the same start area?" that just blew me away - he was a dwarf, so he just assumed he would start in the dwarf lands (you know... like in WoW and a hundred other games).
I agree that this particular mindset (in a start position, area, or newb-central spot with low-level encounter) is probably derived from a Video-Game because for many, that's their first introduction to RPGs. This goes as far back as Legend of Zelda, Gauntlet, Baldur's Gate, and more recently Warcraft I, II, and III & World of Warcraft as well as Dragon Age. But I don't think this can really be linked to any one particular edition (or more) of D&D specifically. Had he made one in 2E or AD&D or Pathfinder, the idea might probably remain because it's a classic staple point in all RP-VGs.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
That means he would think the game is all about doing quests (which is correct), killing stuff (also correct), and gaining 'Phat Lewtz' (and sadly, also correct). But it is SO much more then that, and thats the part the younger people coming into the hobby just don't get. In a VG, if something goes wrong (a glitch), you call an administrator to help you. you KNOW how things are supposed to work, and have been conditioned to "go running for help" when the rules break down. That means if I do something that falls outside the rules, instead of a sense of wonder, I am going to get a , "No fair!" They are used to the rules backing-up their game play... they've become completely reliant upon them. I think the 3e rules started that trend, and 4e just confirmed it.
For 3E, I beleive this is more the case because 1). they codified a LOT of rules that were never actually established in previous editions with modifiers as well as complex adjustment scales and opposing rules. AND 2). because 3E/v3.5/PF really attempted to put in a MUCH simulation into the game as possible. From how much 1-lb of gold coins weigh, to how much damage falling rocks of varible heights and weights might do, to how much damage lava does, to how hard it would be to Bull Rush a person of equal size, smaller size, larger size, to disarming said opponents, to etc... the list goes on.
I understand a lot of people enjoy the simulationism of this style and I did as well for a while, but then I sorta grew out of attempting to codify real-life. By attempting to put rules (and varying ones at that) for everything that can happen in a game, it actually hurts the continunty of the game when there comes a time where a DM has to ad-hoc soemthing.
But I'll beg to differ on how 4E confirmed this mantra, or more likely, simplified it in a sense. For example, lets take Bull Rush. In v3.5 this Special Attack is approx 5 paragraphs long, detailing various attempt scenarios plus adjusting modifiers AND how it's used along with how it's NOT used. That's, well....a bit convoluted for a simple thing to run into someone and attempt to push them back 5+ feet. To further compound the special attack, there are multiple countermeasure that will take place (opposed check, running in a straight line, possible Attacks of Opportunity) that making such an attempt really costly.
Now, in 4E:
BULL RUSH: STANDARD ACTION
• Target: You can bull rush a target adjacent to you
that is smaller than you, the same size category as
you, or one category larger than you.
• Strength Attack: Make a Strength attack vs. Fortitude
defense. Do not add any modifiers for the
weapon you use.
Hit: Push the target 1 square, and shift into the
vacated space.
• Impossible Push: If there’s no square you can push
the target into, your bull rush has no effect.
It's simple, streamlined, easy to read, and not overtly hard to grasp or use by really player. This, to me, is FAR FAR more preferrable than 5 paragraphs with "example" and modifiers and throwing in simulation where there really doesn't need to be any.
As for becoming reliant on rules to carry their actions, I sorta agree but I don't know how much validity there is to this. I think where it also comes from is older players as well. Lets take a look, once again, at 4E and their (in)famous power-blocks. I know a LOT of old-school players that see those and think "OMG, they've codified EVERYTHING! SO I can't do anything without having something specifically spell that out in some 4x4" box with coloring. D&D is dead!" And really, that cannot be any further from the truth. The truth is, these "codified" powers are simply there to enhance your game play with rudimentary things that's available to your character all the time with ZERO questioning by the DM (or close to it).
We, as players, have been dealing with them ever since D&D has been around but until recently (the last 6 or so years) they've just ALWAYS been on the side of the "spellcaster" because that's all they really are, codified abilities that sorta (in most cases) tell DMs how something is going to be accomplished. But that doesn't mean that something else cannot be used because you don't have that specific ability. So lets take a look at another example; Assassin Creed 3.
This highly popularized video game stars a vigilante-style Assassin that does some pretty amazing stuff. One of them is the ability to hide in a tree, garrote a guy on the ground, then hoist him into a "Hanging" positioni by jumping down and using your body weight as an anchor. You stab the dagger or peg into the ground and the target stuggles there until they die. Sounds pretty EPIC eh?
Well what if someone wanted to try that using 4E's D&D mechanics? Some might just roll there eyes and say "Well there's not specific power for that, ergo, it can't be accomplished". Some might say that they'd HAVE to use a power and alter it's effects, thus breaking the mold of what POWERS do and the power it's balance imposes. OR (and stick with me here) we use the rules presented, think critically for 2 minutes, and come up with an easy solution. For me, this is what I'd suggest to the DM (Or player if he wanted to do this):
Step 1: You must be near something that you can A) Hide in and B) use to hoist up a target. This will require an Athletics OR Acrobatics skill check with varying difficulty depending on your choice of placement (a tree = easy DC. a 15' or lower battlement = moderate DC, or a 15' or higher battlment = difficult DC).
Step 2: You must remain silent (if your Stealth skill is above their Passive Perception, no check is required. If you have LOWER than their passive perception, you must make a Stealth check with the DC = To their passive perception) AND you must have 50-ft of rope in addition to line of effect/line of sight to the target.
Step 3: Make a Dexterity-based attack roll (add Dex mod + 1/2 level) against the target's Reflex defense. If the Player is above 5th level, he gains a +1 bonus to the attack roll IN ADDITION TO Combat Advantage (another +2 bonus) totallying +3 on the overall attack. If the character is an actual Assassin and he has a similiar power or weapon (such as an actual Garrote) then he can use that instead.
Step 4: A successful attack means the target is garroted AND hoisted into the air while you spend your move action and fall to the ground (taking no damage due to the weight differential). The target takes 1/4 their maximum HP in damage for each round their aloft. A successful Athletics check, which requires a Standard Action (DC = Difficult) means they've pulled on the rope hard enough to gain air. Two successful checks means they've broken free (either by sheer strength of pulling themselves up or by pulling the dagger free from the ground). If they continue to choke, they lose 1/4 HP every round until they reach 0 HP. If they go below 0 HP, they die. If they succeed in breaking free they regain 1/4 HP every round by spending a standard action to gulp in air.
Now I know that looks like alot (since I put in info only the DM would know) but I don't think it would be all that hard. I also wouldn't put this into a Stat-Box or into some codified power NOR would I attempt to write this into some rule-book. This is all simply ad-hoc with some basic knowledge of the game's mechanics with a little improv for the effects of the garrote. I based the effects on how hard and situationally effective this would work. Since it requires multiple steps, tools, and placement I made the judgement that the effect should be pretty harsh (meaing death in just 4-5 rounds).
But there's always room for DMs to make changes. Such as making the target perform a Saving Throw instead of a standard action to break free OR instantly losing 1/2 HP, thus making it more deadly OR allowing the character a free Basic Attack as the target gets hoisted up OR teh player being allowed to add Ability modifier in a damage roll or using Sneak Attack damage for added effect. There's a LOT people can do within the basic and simple framework and it doesn't need to ALL be codified powers of varying colors. It doesn't need to be ONLY a Rogue or Assassin "thing" or something that's only done 1/day or some other unnecessary gamist-element to be introduced. But I don't think a lot of people do this, because it's just simpler to look at Green Power #2, swing. Red Power #5, swing. Action Point, Racial Power. Next player.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Gary Gygax once said, "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules". We have to somehow re-convey to new gamers that the rules are just a tool, not the game. The more rules you create, the easier it becomes to forget that.
I don't think we need MORE rules, just better ones that get the job done easier and with less words. I don't need 5 paragraphs to let me know how hard it is to knock someone back that's my same size or one size UP or DOWN from medium. Streamlining things so that they're quick and easy to read while providing the greats amount of versatility is far more optimal than codifiying everyting by larges amounts of text. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 02 Jan 2013 : 13:59:15
A 'Ruleslawyer' isn't necessarily a rules-expert. To me, its a person who is a rules-expert, AND conveniently forgets certain rules when it is in their favor to do so. They don't just know the rules, they weild them like a club.
As for the '3e mindset'.... {sigh}... I think thats an outgrowth of the younger generation growing up with video games. I hate to blame everything on VG's, but so many preconceptions about D&D come form kids playing RPVGs.
For instance, when I started a game for my 11 and 15 year olds about a week back, my 11 year old asked me how he and his brother were going to meet. I was a bit confused, and said you meet in the town, or you could have known each other for years. He answered, "You mean we have the same start area?" that just blew me away - he was a dwarf, so he just assumed he would start in the dwarf lands (you know... like in WoW and a hundred other games).
That means he would think the game is all about doing quests (which is correct), killing stuff (also correct), and gaining 'Phat Lewtz' (and sadly, also correct). But it is SO much more then that, and thats the part the younger people coming into the hobby just don't get. In a VG, if something goes wrong (a glitch), you call an administrator to help you. you KNOW how things are supposed to work, and have been conditioned to "go running for help" when the rules break down. That means if I do something that falls outside the rules, instead of a sense of wonder, I am going to get a , "No fair!" They are used to the rules backing-up their game play... they've become completely reliant upon them. I think the 3e rules started that trend, and 4e just confirmed it.
Gary Gygax once said, "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules". We have to somehow re-convey to new gamers that the rules are just a tool, not the game. The more rules you create, the easier it becomes to forget that. |
| BlackAce |
Posted - 02 Jan 2013 : 13:09:49
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I agree with what you say, save for this of a sorts....
quote:
Originally posted by BlackAce
The same is true for players. I think everyone can agree rules lawyers are a PITA.
It depends on what one considers "ruleslaywer".
*Nods* It really does. I personally wouldn't consider someone a 'Rules Lawyer' just because they employed their rules knowledge. It is, like you suggest, very much a case of the latter, where a person is using their rules knowledge in a tenaciously pedantic manner or in order to get their own way, very often against the spirit of the rule. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 02 Jan 2013 : 11:22:40
I think you're overanalyzing or misunderstanding what I said. "Rule 0" = "change the rules if/when needed to improve the game (and have fun)", yes? A perfectly valid rule, when it's broken the game sucks and players don't have fun, apply Rule 0 or play a different game because this one is already lost.
The Oberoni Fallacy, as (re)stated at the few wikis and forums I visited, applies to any rule which isn't broken. It does not selectively apply to only bad rules, yet a rule which isn't broken (doesn't need changing) is not a bad rule.
It's not hard to figure out what Oberoni really meant to say (assuming the wiki quotes are accurate), and I think I know what you're saying, Diffan. Of course, a perfect ruleset without "bad" or "broken" rules is impossible because the how the rules are interpreted and even the terms "bad" and "broken" are not defined or applied universally or objectively. It's highly improbable for two DMs to readily agree on perfect rule "balance", and it's absolutely impossible for twenty DMs to ever completely agree on anything ... and yes, the game designers do need to recognize and address a wide array of differing playstyles when writing any rule, sometimes they find a perfect compromise, sometimes they blunder. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 02 Jan 2013 : 10:50:50
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I looked up this so-called Oberoni Fallacy - essentially "a rule which isn't broken can be (should be) fixed". It's not only wrong (which I suppose could technically qualify it is a fallacy), it's a pretentious and officious-sounding name applied to an argument so immediately and obviously wrong that even its original creator (Oberoni) dismissed its validity as an argument.
Ok, I'm a bit confused. The Oberoni Fallacy means, simply, implying that any bad rule (which often pertains to "broken" "unbalancing" "instant-winning" or "game-ending" ones) can be changed or ignored by Rule 0 means there are no bad rules. Just because a DM can change a rule doesn't invalidate the notion that "said" rule is Bad or broken, it just means that as a DM you've chosen to ignore it. It's still a bad or broken or whatever rule.
In game design the developers NEED to be conscious of this because not EVERY DM will just employ Rule 0 to throw it out and espically ones at Cons or group play in RPGA events. If a rule is bad, then it should be fixed, not ignored. The cotinuation to the Oberoni Fallacy is that "If said rule wasn't bad then the DM wouldn't have need to envoke Rule 0."
Or are you suggesting that averting bad rules or saying there are no bad rules because Rule 0 is silly?
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 02 Jan 2013 : 10:37:27
I agree with what you say, save for this of a sorts....
quote:
Originally posted by BlackAce
The same is true for players. I think everyone can agree rules lawyers are a PITA.
It depends on what one considers "ruleslaywer". I consider myself very well read on most of the rules in v3.5 and most of them in 4E and I understand a lot of the complexity to character crafting, spell effects, etc... I use this information in the game so that if anyone has a question, I can come up with the answer faster than paging through the book AND in an attempt to keep the game considerably smooth and maintain continuty as far as rules go. Is this considered ruleslaywering? Many might think so because I know a lot of them and help to keep those rules active, or at least, make players concious of them (from a DM standpoint).
When I come across someone who intentionally distorts the RAW (rules-as-written) without taking into account RAI (rules-as-intended), then this is where problems arise. The more "murky" the rules read, the more chances the bad ruleslaywer rears their ugly head. For exmaple, in the new D&D:Next playtest there is a feat called Two-Weapon Defense. It states "So long as you are wielding two different weapons in either hand, you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC.". Here, a bad ruleslaywer might suggest that this means that you cannot wield two Shortswords or two Daggers or two Longswords and gain the bonus where as I believe the intent is to discourage those who wield a two-handed weapon in both hands, since it's one singular weapon. It's worded badly and some ruleslawyers might attempt to manipulate this to mean something I believe it's not intending. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 02 Jan 2013 : 10:37:18
I looked up this so-called Oberoni Fallacy - essentially "a rule which isn't broken can be (should be) fixed". It's not only wrong (which I suppose could technically qualify it is a fallacy), it's a pretentious and officious-sounding name applied to an argument so immediately and obviously wrong that even its original creator (Oberoni) dismissed its validity as an argument.
Sometimes I wish gamers would simply speak English instead of inventing exaggerated important-sounding terminology. Now, back to topic ... |
| Diffan |
Posted - 02 Jan 2013 : 10:03:49
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I get the impression that players (and a few DMs) think, so far as 3E is concerned, that you can only add to or modify a monster based on already existing rules, classes, PrCs and splatbook minutia...that is, it's somehow against the rules to think up a cool new monster or NPCs ability, spell, whatever, decide no adequate (and existing) rule applies, then use the tried and true +2/-2 or some other reasonably balanced approach (maybe a unique extraordinary or spell like ability) to add to the monster what it is you're looking for.
The notion you can't do this...it's not in the rulebooks, so far as I know. Why play the game that way?
I think it depends on a number of factors, from the level the campaign is at and where your ideal monster/NPC falls into that plus the strength and scope of the ability. I don't think anyones saying that you can't do this OR that it's impossible to color outside the lines (I like that analogy Shemmy, Thx!) when it comes to crafting abilities and powers of individual creatures. What I'm saying (from my experience with v3.5) is that doing so has the possibilty of shifting the design purpose of such a monster too much. It can lead to unforseen and unintentional consequences.
Now, this is why Level and power come into play. Most people can assume the power of an ability when the game sits in the low-level range (1st thru 6th) and how it effects the system when used with similiar options. Giving a CR 6 human wizard NPC at-will Flight might be a STRONG power but it's not horribly overpowered if it still requires an action to activate (some might disagree) where as being able to Drain 1d4 levels at-will DEFINITLY is overpowered at 6th level. But as powers of PCs increase and the function of ad-hoc stuff comes in, I think the strength of such powers becomes more blurred. So the same NPC human Wizard is now 14th level and has at-will Flight, at-will scorching ray, and say, at-will Blur and 3/encounter or Day he can heal 30 hp to himself. Is this powerful in a mid- to high-leveled campaign? Is 3/encounter or day at 50 HP healing powerful? How about the ability to attack with two Bastardswords at roughly the same level as a Fighter WITH at-will Flight, at-will scorching ray, at-will Blur, and 3/encounter heal 30 hp? How about adding invisibility 1/encounter on top of that? Most of these effects are all spells under 4th level (save attacking with weapons) but did you factor in the BIGGEST equalizer in the game: Action Economy?
With a game like D&D, the biggest and most important thing to get outside of XP is more actions in your turn. So a 14th level human Wizard NPC that can fly at-will, shoot scorching ray at-will, cast blur at-will, and use two bastardswords at approx attack range as a Fighter MIGHT be on-par with PC equivalents SO LONG as all these abilities consume actions. Making them instantaneous or minor actions instantly increases it's powerlevel to exceed any NPC of about 16th level.
So while I agree that ad-hoc'ing features and abilities at low levels is easier and should be encouraged, a DM needs more adequate information and Rules Mastery at the later stages in the game so that he doesn't over-shoot (or under-shoot) the level and frame of the thing he's creating.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Literally, a DM being creative isn't the same thing as "breaking the rules," provided the DM has good intentions and is interested in providing an awesome, fun game.
Agreed, though many times I've seen DM's good intentions fall apart due to unknowingly create stuff that has backfired on himself as well as the group. Of course, it can be fixed but it definitly ruins some of the immersion and continunity of the game. Plus, it makes others a bit more leery of such actions in the future. Like in my example earlier, I had a very "Legit" evil NPC Sorcerer of 5th level wield a Greatsword, take two combat-focused feats (Power Attack + Cleave) and Improved Initiative. His spells were 1st—Nerveskitter, Shield, Obscuring Mist, Grease; 2nd—Blur, Wraithstrike. In 6 rounds the PC wizard is dead, the rogue is dead, the cleric is near death, and the fighter is still struggling to hit the NPC who has shield, +1 light armor, and blur on. The only thing I changed about the NPC's building blocks was that I gave him Max Hit Points + 1 additional HP per level, or roughly 60 some HPs.
So I can appreciate one DMs experience that some players are well-nigh rules lawyers when it comes to deconstructing creature abilities, but frankly it's not a player's business to constantly be second guessing his or her DM by reverse engineering the math. If a player is that anal about how his/her DM runs a game--especially during a play session--boot the player or let that player be the DM.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
It's always been the DMs responsibility in 3E to keep a careful eye over treasure, character abilities, what PrCs are allowed and what aren't, challenge ratings for monsters and otherwise mind the balance of the game. 3E was never a plug-and-play game (which, now that I think about it, is why the Oberoni Fallacy is wrong).
Well yea, that's the main point isn't it? That for a DM to keep an eye on all those things from a rules-book sense can be daunting, but to then change it based on what seems cool is going to throw what sense of balance there is out the window. |
| BlackAce |
Posted - 02 Jan 2013 : 09:28:42
It's like anything else, your opinions on this will be colored by your experiences. A DM who can bend the rules to improve the adventure experience is a real asset. A DM who bends the rules because he sees the players as lab rats for his own personal cheese maze is anything but.
The same is true for players. I think everyone can agree rules lawyers are a PITA. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 02 Jan 2013 : 09:26:16
crazedventurers, no worries. I believe you have only good intentions.
I do too, though I readily admit my replies might come off as acerbic. Here we go.
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
You should never ever ever need feats and PrC to make your character a Realms Character (or Eberron or Greyhawk or any other setting etc).
Why?
Feats help a player to customize his or her character, to differentiate one Fighter (for example) from another. Many feats are unique to regions of the Realms and fit that region’s flavor.
PrCs—when written correctly (that is, not to fill space as part of some bean counter’s “MOAR RULZ ARE GUD!” quota) are based on pure Realms flavor; they’re based on specific elements of the setting.
To me it makes no sense that we’d accept people are really interested in the Realms, but then say no mechanics are necessary or even useful to make that world come to life.
I mean, I understand that it’s quite possible not to use mechanics and just wing it, but I’m not going to sit here and pretend players don’t get a buzz out of being able to point to/use a feat, skill or whatever written down on their character sheet that’s related to something in the setting—especially if they’ve invested time and money to read Realms novels and sourcebooks, or play Realms-related computer games.
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
It is the player and DM interaction that makes it a Realms campaign and the PC's, Realms PC's
That’s it? That’s the only thing that makes a game a Realms game?
Look, just because I’m a ginormous fan of setting related mechanics and say as much doesn’t mean I’m saying thou shalt rely on them only.
If nobody gets anything I say, I hope they get this: an emphasis on mechanics is not a de-emphasis of roleplaying, storytelling and DM-Player interaction.
Also, I’m not totally grey yet, but I’ve been playing D&D since before the Realms were published. Just because I use a version of the D&D game system printed sixteen years after the Realms hit the stands doesn’t mean I (or any younger DM) don’t know how to make things up.
In fact, that’s my strong point. Adult players with lives, wives and children make time out of their busy schedules to be a part of games I run because I know how to deliver a damn good story.
With respect, I think you fail to see that players are interested in their characters first and foremost. Mechanics help them bridge the gap between what they see of their character in their minds eye, what’s written on the character sheet and what they can do at the gaming table.
Good game rules help bring the game world to life. They don’t get in the way.
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
(snip) the setting was originally inspired by Ed to tell stories and developed into an AD&D world post 1978 or so, so little if any mechanics were required then or indeed now.
I do not believe the bolded portion (emphasis mine, of course) is true.
To me it appears that because people know Ed’s games were of the roleplaying over rules variety that they conclude this is somehow conveyed through the early Realms game materials into all other people’s games.
But it’s a huge leap between what one DM does in his game and what all other DMs do. Jeff Grubb (for all intents and purposes co-creator of the first published Forgotten Realms) wasn’t sitting in on Ed’s games, telling him what to do and what not to, but he had a big hand in shaping the Realms that saw print—and he wasn’t the only person.
The material produced for the Realms was written with current and new DMs in mind—DMs who knew the rules and were playing a game with game mechanics.
Look at any of Ed’s early articles on the Realms; he was perfectly aware that players memorize rules, want DMs to be beholden to those rules and more then once he came up with concepts to help DMs along (not the least of which is the unreliable narrator).
I want to emphasize I’m not saying it’s impossible to run a rules-lite, make it up as you go game. It’s entirely possible.
It’s just that most people don’t run their games that way. They buy rulebooks and expect to get some mileage out of them.
As an aside, thanks for keeping the All Info About Cormyr thread up to date. I’m glad that material is being saved in more then one place on this forum.
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 02 Jan 2013 : 09:10:50
quote:
Jeremy Grenemyer
I can appreciate one DMs experience that some players are well-nigh rules lawyers when it comes to deconstructing creature abilities, but frankly it's not a player's business to constantly be second guessing his or her DM by reverse engineering the math. If a player is that anal about how his/her DM runs a game--especially during a play session--boot the player or let that player be the DM.
Agreed - quite wholeheartedly - with everything you said, JG, except this.
Rules-lawyer behaviour, along with realtime or after-the-fact methodical deconstruction/analysis of the DM's decisions annoys me too. A little bit is sort of expected, it's just another necessary basic min-max sort of thing and it at least indicates the players are being attentive (or better yet, worried).
But although this sort of thing bugs me, when taken too far, I've been in gaming groups where such dynamics were the norm, groups with happy players and happy DMs having a great old time ... it's just another playstyle, it's not really my thing but it does work for others. Regardless which D&D edition (or other RPG) is being played. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 02 Jan 2013 : 08:13:50
I get the impression that players (and a few DMs) think, so far as 3E is concerned, that you can only add to or modify a monster based on already existing rules, classes, PrCs and splatbook minutia...that is, it's somehow against the rules to think up a cool new monster or NPCs ability, spell, whatever, decide no adequate (and existing) rule applies, then use the tried and true +2/-2 or some other reasonably balanced approach (maybe a unique extraordinary or spell like ability) to add to the monster what it is you're looking for.
The notion you can't do this...it's not in the rulebooks, so far as I know. Why play the game that way?
Literally, a DM being creative isn't the same thing as "breaking the rules," provided the DM has good intentions and is interested in providing an awesome, fun game.
I can appreciate one DMs experience that some players are well-nigh rules lawyers when it comes to deconstructing creature abilities, but frankly it's not a player's business to constantly be second guessing his or her DM by reverse engineering the math. If a player is that anal about how his/her DM runs a game--especially during a play session--boot the player or let that player be the DM.
It's always been the DMs responsibility in 3E to keep a careful eye over treasure, character abilities, what PrCs are allowed and what aren't, challenge ratings for monsters and otherwise mind the balance of the game. 3E was never a plug-and-play game (which, now that I think about it, is why the Oberoni Fallacy is wrong). |
| Diffan |
Posted - 02 Jan 2013 : 05:46:57
quote:
Originally posted by WalkerNinja
I hated that 3E turned me and my players into mechanics instead of story-tellers and players.
That's a bit of a non sequitur. Mechanics of a game-system has really no bearing on telling a story or being a player. What it does is give a framework to that story so it doesn't degrade into
"I shot you first!"
"Nuh-uh, I blocked it with my spell shield"
"You didn't say you had a spell shield"
"You didn't bother to ask"
If people want to tell stories, then It's better to just write a novel or play a freeform game where the is no mechanics. But that's not really D&D, which has alwasy been a class-based, mechanics-driven Role-Playing Game. Such games need rules. If those rules aren't balanced or fail to provide a meaningful way to contribute or interact with the game or if people just outright ignore them then it has the possibility to alienate players and drive people away from playing it again.
It's the main reason I left AD&D for two years and had, at that time, just sworn off RPGs due to the disparity of the system and the players along with a bad rapport with the DM. But then I got into 3E (at the time) and actually learned the rules and became somewhat knowledgable when the DM would go off-the-rails and screw the players every once in a while. It wouldn't deter the DM even when I pointed it out but at least the players at the table KNEW he was breaking the rules that we, as the players, were following pretty strongly.
When the DM breaks rules that go against players, it gives players less incentive to adhere to them on a consistant basis. People start rolling and "fudging" the numbers or adding a few points to their Attack or Damage or saying that have such-and-such ability. Why? Because if the DM isn't playing fair there's little reason for a player to do so blindly. |
| WalkerNinja |
Posted - 02 Jan 2013 : 05:29:59
I hated that 3E turned me and my players into mechanics instead of story-tellers and players. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 02 Jan 2013 : 05:22:46
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Like in 3e/v3.5, monsters follow the same rule/progression as characters and thus, are limited to the same stipulations and restricions or else any meager balance contained is lost.
Why though do you feel limited to adhere strictly to that rule? Clearly you didn't feel constrained to color outside the lines in 2e it would appear, or 4e by your own admission.
To quote what I already said:
quote:
Further, when DMs start going outside the scope of monster design (adding spells, extra feats, more skill ranks) it instantly changes this character's challenge rating and thus, could become far stronger (or weaker) than the DM had originally intended. A few feat combos and 1 spell might sound really awesome but, in practice, might lead to an unintentional TPK or an easy encounter for PCs when it should've been threatening. Couple this with an already wishy-washy system of CR and, IMO, leads to situations that neither sides of the screen want to be in. I had a 5th level "battle" sorcerer NPC fight some PCs. I have him a 2-handed weapon, the spell Wraithstrike and the Power Attack + Cleave feats. Yea, he was NOT a CR 5 encounter, by any stretch of the means.
So by not going by the book, it instantly changes the strength of the monster/NPC to unpredictable levels when used against a group. It requires on-the-spot adjudication in these instances and, while it's not impossible to do this, it's something that I don't particuarly enjoy doing to "fix" something. While in 4E, adding a specific ability or power or such-and-such doesn't have as strong an impact on the challenge of such a creature, espically when I can easily "click and drop" powers directly from other monsters and the math fixes it to the current power-level of the monster.
So, for example, I want a 2nd level evil NPC to have a demonic power, I could type in Demons and get a "Soul Sucking" ability from a 14th level demon. I drag the Soul Sucking power onto my NPC and instead of the power dealing 3d6 + 12 necrotic damage and dazes the target (save ends) and drains the target 1 healing surge, it might only deal 1d8 + 3 necrotic damage dazes the target (save ends) and drains the target 1 healing surge. I might still consider this a bit to powerful for such a low level so I give it a high-recharge value (say, have to roll a 6 on a 1d6 to regain it's use). So in this instance, the strength of such a power is in the numbers and possibly the use of it. Said demon might be able to recharge this on a roll of 4, 5, or 6 every turn while our 2nd level NPC can only do it on a roll of 6.
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
I didn't feel limited in that same way then, nor now in the weird admixture of 3e/3.5/PF in my own games. If I want something to have a unique power or ability, it does. No muss no fuss. If it's an important NPC, they'll probably have a reason for coloring outside the lines, but it's not a huge deal for me.
That's cool, your players expect difference in what your monsters/NPCs can do that's outside the realm of the rules (giving a Barbarian an ability to say, shadow jaunt 15 ft. away with no magic words or spells for example). Some of my players and ones I've played along side with would probably question the reasons behind this (was it a magic item, a trait possessed by a template or kit, or did he have levels in sorcerer/Wizard?) because they know the rules too and some of them aren't cool about breaking them or, as you say, coloring outside the lines. To me, when the rules are super transparent it sorta forces the DM to justify the reasons why Monsters and NPCs have the abilities they do, espically when those abilities are far outside the capabilities of such players. This, I will admit, is a problem I had exclusively with v3.5 and Pathfinder and not one in 4E.
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
Is it a desire to adhere to "balance"? If so, why did we ever decide to let some arbitrary notion of balance dictate what we could or could not do? I'd happily let the whole cult of balance thing die in a fire if I could, and let world design run unhindered from that lead ball and chain.
Because balance is important in game design, or at least I strongly think so. But balance doesn't have to be what it is in v3.5, where to have it both Monsters/NPCs and Players all play by the same building blocks. 4E is far more balanced than v3.5 in terms of "breaking" the game or coming up with instant-win buttons spellcasters can just do because....magic.
As for Balance in general, lets get one thing understood:
Balance =/= Equal. It never has and those who enjoy balance do not want equality. I don't want same damage expressions from each class. I don't want the same AC, defenses, HP for all classes across the board. That's not what Balance means. What balance does mean is that each party member can contribute equally, in their own fashion, to overcoming obstacles. This also means that the "spotlight" of any given battle isn't Shared individually, but that it's shone on everyone at once. The rogue is doing the most damage, the Fighter is keeping the biggest and most dangerous monster busy, the cleric is casting spells that make the Fighter stronger or removing an adverse effect by another monster, and the Wizard is keeping other monsters busy with a zone effect, a summoned monster, or putting them to sleep or confusing them and slowing them down from rushing into battle.
Here, each one has a specific role and they excell in that role. Each one helps another overcome the encounter. The Cleric isn't fighting as good OR better than the fighter, the wizard isn't casting one spell and ending the threat before anyone can enter the battle. The Rogue isn't hiding in the shadow, waiting for the battle to be over because they're not that good (generally speaking) in combat. And the Fighter isn't cursing because his feats just aren't being useful and he's being overshadowed by the might of the cleric.
For a non-combative example, lets take a Locked Door inside the dungeon. A Wizard is useful because he might have Knock as a ritual. It can be cast from a distance and it's mostly silent BUT it requires time (10 Min) and resources (GP or materials). The Rogue could pick the lock. It's quick, often silent, and it's possible to be done over and over but it might trigger a trap. A Fighter is useful because he can just kick the thing down. It's fast and usually adequate with a few attempts. But it's loud and can trigger traps. SO each one of these character can contribute equally but they all have downsides. Also, it means that one class isn't specifically required to be in the group and thus, shoring up more options for players instead of "ah man, I HATE playing the cleric. Someone else be one this time" type of stuff. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 02 Jan 2013 : 01:14:17
It was more along the lines off lots of little stuff - an 'overall feel', if you will. On just about every page I was reminded of similar things elsewhere.
When I think about FR compared to Greyhawk, I think FR is GH 'all grown up'. Then when I think about Golarion compared to FR, I think of Golarion as 'FR done right' (not that Ed didn't do it right - I'm talking about un-making all the mistakes that have been made since it became a published setting). FR is no less mature then Golarion (although some of the material is VERY mature compared to FR) as a setting, but it doesn't have all that weirdness that creeped in over the years (mostly through some bad 2e adventures, and the few 1e adventures that were shoe-horned in retroactively). I guess the best way to put it is that they have much better editing - they filter out all the crap (no lichlings, zoot-suit wearing beholders, 'islands of the crazies' {Whamites), or Khans running amok in the Vilhon Reach, for example). A lot of the old-school 'Greyhawk feel' (silliness) kept spilling over early on, and we don't see any of that in Golarion.
On the other hand, I think Golarion may have gone overboard as well, with its 'one size fits all' setting. Tech in a setting is a big turn-off for me, and takes me back to the early (bad) days of GH gaming. Theres also a few other flavors in there that seem just thrown in to appeal to the lowest common denominator (Cthulhuesque, Gothic horror, and yes, even some World of Darkness and Earthdawn). One of the biggest complaints about FR (and also, strangely, one of its strongest assets) was the inability for anyone to pin down its 'flavor'. I guess 'all flavors at once' is the Realms flavor, and Golarion took that to an extreme.
The one major plus Gol has over FR in the flavor dept is a theme - the recent fall of Aroden. Most settings do have a major event "about a century ago" - thats part of the RPG genre. The Realms never had that - it just sort of started out right in the middle of nothing. In a way that set it apart, because it didn't try to be a setting about something (I think I just made out that FR is the RPG equivalent of Seinfeld). Now we do have 'bad stuff' happening "about a century ago", so FR just became one in a pack of many. In fact, we have a whole bunch of crap happening 100 years past because of the never-ending RSEs of 3e. Now its going to move forward again, and the Sundering is going to our 'big event' that the setting is still recovering from.
I'm not saying any of that is good or bad - I accept it as part of D&D. I'm just saying the more things change, the more they seem the same. I don't need an RPG setting to tell me stories, I need an empty stage (with maybe some props a few fake buildings). I'll tell the stories, and my PCs are the actors. Thats what The Realms was in the beginning - a theater you could run wild in. When the setting starts telling ME what to do, then its not an RPG setting anymore. |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 01 Jan 2013 : 23:15:54
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Yeah, not a day goes by where I read something in the Golarion material and think, "that sounds just like..."
A lot of 4e stuff as well - I'm not sure who copied who (I'd have to study all the release dates). To tell you the truth, I think that a lot of those ideas pre-dated either... I think that they were part of Ed's 'deeper secrets'. All those Paizo designers were privy to that stuff we never got to see, so it was fairly easy for them to cherry-pick from that secret material without us being any the wiser. Then when WotC releases something similar (I am really thinking about the Aboleths here), we think they copied Golarion, when it was really some buried FR material all along. Just a hunch, is all. Almost everything about Golarion screams 'based in Ed design' to me. Its like they tore some pages out of some secret 'setting bible'.
Well, a lot of different people worked on the original campaign setting book. Each of us had various assignments for sections of the book, different nations, etc. Exactly how much detail there was already from the gazetteer, early AP entries and modules, and unreleased notes from Eric or James varied wildly. In some cases I had a decent amount of material and additional notes to build upon, and in other cases a half page of notes and the creative freedom to go wild with a particular section, just going by a few guidelines.
As such, I think it really combines the old-school Greyhawk background that the Paizo guys came from, plus then the particular backgrounds of every other author in the campaign setting. Thus it wouldn't be surprising to see some classic FR sensibilities enter in. While a lot of my stuff was Planescape inspired, the more down to earth sections had inspiration from my own background in a decent amount of FR and much lesser so some Earthdawn experience as a player and DM over the years.
At least that was my experience, so it applies for maybe possibly 5% of the stuff by page count?
What stuff in particular did you find thematic parallels between PF/4e/FR stuff?
|
| Shemmy |
Posted - 01 Jan 2013 : 23:04:44
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Like in 3e/v3.5, monsters follow the same rule/progression as characters and thus, are limited to the same stipulations and restricions or else any meager balance contained is lost.
Why though do you feel limited to adhere strictly to that rule? Clearly you didn't feel constrained to color outside the lines in 2e it would appear, or 4e by your own admission.
I didn't feel limited in that same way then, nor now in the weird admixture of 3e/3.5/PF in my own games. If I want something to have a unique power or ability, it does. No muss no fuss. If it's an important NPC, they'll probably have a reason for coloring outside the lines, but it's not a huge deal for me.
Is it a desire to adhere to "balance"? If so, why did we ever decide to let some arbitrary notion of balance dictate what we could or could not do? I'd happily let the whole cult of balance thing die in a fire if I could, and let world design run unhindered from that lead ball and chain. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 01 Jan 2013 : 21:34:33
I feel this was one of the things that drives certain segments of the gaming population nuts, especially when it comes to a multi-edition spanning setting like FR. In my opinion, Ed seems to belong more to the older design philosophy where there are as many individual touches, unique twists, and often times weird exceptions to the rules as there are rules themselves. For example, he speaks of this in his interview with the Gentleman Gamer. Magic is mysterious and not easily codified in rules. Once you do codify it, the mystery fades. It's a fine line between designing rules and mechanics for the game that are fair and useable but also fun, mysterious, wondrous. He also noted that sometimes forcing rules translations between editions sometimes takes out the balancing penalties or costs of the original design (ie Spellfire and Wild Magic). A lot of the troubles with 3E's presentation of the Realms lies in poor translation of old edition versions of NPCs and magic. There were other missteps of course, but these were blatant and easily avoidable or corrected if given the proper attention when they first emerged.
As for Pathfinder Forgotten Realms, if FR were coupled with that rules set and the production values and support that Paizo lavishes on Golarion, I think a lot of people, old and new, would flock to the setting. Those colorful, shiny books are great advertising. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 01 Jan 2013 : 20:24:09
I dont see what the fuss is all about. I have played in and DM'd every edition of DnD and 3rd ed is my favourite because its various rules mesh together the best which means it is the easiest to modify.
No matter the ruleset used however i always modified the rules to my own personal taste so that the game was best for me.
I am guilty of never saying no to a player, i am of the view that if I can have it then why shouldnt a player. However just because i didnt say no, doesnt mean the yes didnt come with significant and difficult requirements.
I love the fact that 3rd edition can be made to balance almost perfectly, it means not only can i use anything as a prop or a tool in my storytelling (something that i need since my skills in that department are somewhat lacking), but also it means the players can become whatever they envisage (given time, effort and considerable amounts of luck), and after all isnt that what playing an rpg is all about.
I personally try and make everything as realistic as possible (so no candles in a vacuum unless a spell allows it), having rules behind your events help make things seem realistic as they provide justification for its existence and behaviour and if someone can believe in the world i have created then i consider it a job well done.
Thankfully with 3rd edition came epic magic, and if its mixed a bit with the idea of 4th edition rituals i came up with a way to make everyone able to do anything, so for instance i dont need a high level npc to cast a spell to summon a devil, instead i can use anyone with a bit of magical knowledge and enough sacrifices or moronic followers willing to give their lives to summon it.
I think my point is that you should make your rules whatever you want, dont be afraid of having a rule for everything, add rules as you go along, and discard them when they get in the way, but its always better to have rules that work and ignore them when needed than not have a rule in the first place. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 01 Jan 2013 : 20:20:10
Yeah, not a day goes by where I read something in the Golarion material and think, "that sounds just like..."
A lot of 4e stuff as well - I'm not sure who copied who (I'd have to study all the release dates). To tell you the truth, I think that a lot of those ideas pre-dated either... I think that they were part of Ed's 'deeper secrets'. All those Paizo designers were privy to that stuff we never got to see, so it was fairly easy for them to cherry-pick from that secret material without us being any the wiser. Then when WotC releases something similar (I am really thinking about the Aboleths here), we think they copied Golarion, when it was really some buried FR material all along. Just a hunch, is all. Almost everything about Golarion screams 'based in Ed design' to me. Its like they tore some pages out of some secret 'setting bible'.
Last night I was reading about The Whispering Way, and thought, "Damn... if that doesn't sound just like the Eminence of Araunt". Then I thought, Ed had a big hand in designing the Returned Abeir stuff.... hmmmmmmm. I think that was an old setting idea that got dusted off and brought to light. I have to wonder about how many of Ed's ideas never saw the light of day, and have been recently re-purposed.
Anyhow, not knocking Paizo, or WotC - just noting certain trends. I think the reason why so many FR fans (and GH and DL) like Golarion so much is because it does feel like home. This thread is more about "what has gone before, what we liked, what we didn't like, and what we would like down the road". Discussion is good, especially if certain folk are watching. |
| BlackAce |
Posted - 01 Jan 2013 : 19:22:31
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
You know what I think? I think a LOT of those Golarion players are ex-FR players, and a lot miss and want to come home. Its just easier for them to run Pathfinder in Golarion because the rules are designed with that world in mind. If FR began supporting the PF rules, my guess is you'd see a rather large turn-around. Do to them what they did to WotC - its a two-way street. Use their own rules against them.
Not just FR, Paizo cherry picked some of the best elements of FR, Dragonlance and Greyhawk. It picked up a lot of disgruntled players from those settings too and 3rd didn't exactly treat them kindly let alone 4th.
If WotC really want to regain so many of the customers they've lost, just going back to 'the good old days' isn't going to be enough. Next and The Sundering are going to have to be balls out indulgences to win people back. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 01 Jan 2013 : 17:06:51
Balance is good to have, but it can be over done.
In the Elric novels, he traveled to a world that was ruled by 'the grey lords' - those gods that were neither lawful or chaotic; they were about balance. This world was the dullest (everything was grey) Elric had ever seen. All the life had been sucked right out of it.
Years and Years ago there was a JLA comic featuring a villain named 'The Equalizer', who would make everyone... EQUAL. Everyone would have the same amount of talents, abilities, size, shape, etc, etc. There is a reason this guy was villain, and why the JLA wanted to stop him. The lesson here is that too much balance is a bad thing, and I think (just my opinion) that they may have put too much emphasis on it, both in 3e and in 4e.
At no point in time was Frodo EVER the equal of Sauron, yet he defeated him. How 'epic' would his victory have been if he exactly the same abilities as Sauron? If everyone was superman, would we bother to read about him? Would he be interesting?
"All things being equal" detracts from the accomplishments of the PCs. It goes from fantasy questing 'against all odds' to just doing a job (or worse, just grinding to level-up). Do I want rules? Of course. Do I want them to control every aspect of the game? That seems more like shackles then imagination. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Jan 2013 : 16:54:48
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
Oh and to answer Mark's original post it has something to do with 'balance' apparently. So everyone (PC/NPC) is all the same and the world is a 'happy-clappy' place where everyone is equal and everyone has the same chance and we only run 'balanced' encounters to make sure PC level up at the same time and publish structured adventure paths that give a clear indication of progression to everyone and its all in 'balance' [blah-di-blah). Of course some might say that this obsession with 'balance' sucks the soul of out the (A)D&D game as it used to be played.....
Cheers
Damian
I fail to see what's so bad about wanting to make sure PCs and NPCs have the same options... Or how that has anything to do with balancing classes against each other. I think that making sure that PCs and NPCs have the same options is a good thing. I'm entirely against the idea that all PCs have to be able to do the same amount of damage at all levels, but that is not at all related to making sure that PCs can, if they choose to do so and take the proper feats/PrCs/whatever, do the same thing as NPCs. I'd certainly make PCs work very hard for some things, but I wouldn't want to say "oh, no, there's no way you'll ever be able to do that, no matter what you do." |
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 01 Jan 2013 : 16:28:40
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
If anything, it was the opposite: 3E’s goal (one it succeeded at, hands down) was to open up the Realms by allowing DMs and players (primarily through Prestige Classes, magic items and spells) to engage with the setting such that they could create very flavorful characters, NPCs, monsters and encounters that truly fit the Realms.
(Disclaimer: Jeremy not a dig at you in the slightest {and I unreservedly apologize now if you feel it is}, but at the 3.x mindset as discussed in your post and re-iterated in many similar forms on many different forums over the last 10 years or so)
Of course you could do what we oldies still do and make it up (I think for D&D next it is called 'Theatre of the Mind'......). You should never ever ever need feats and PrC to make your character a Realms Character (or Eberron or Greyhawk or any other setting etc). It is the player and DM interaction that makes it a Realms campaign and the PC's, Realms PC's
I do not see how you need any of the 3.x mechanics to 'engage with the setting', the setting was originally inspired by Ed to tell stories and developed into an AD&D world post 1978 or so, so little if any mechanics were required then or indeed now.
Obviously this is my personal opinion on things and as ever fits with what I like to see, read and play with in the Realms.
Oh and to answer Mark's original post it has something to do with 'balance' apparently. So everyone (PC/NPC) is all the same and the world is a 'happy-clappy' place where everyone is equal and everyone has the same chance and we only run 'balanced' encounters to make sure PC level up at the same time and publish structured adventure paths that give a clear indication of progression to everyone and its all in 'balance' [blah-di-blah). Of course some might say that this obsession with 'balance' sucks the soul of out the (A)D&D game as it used to be played.....
Cheers
Damian |
|
|
