Comic Con has come and gone and this year DC seemed to dominate. Not that I'm complaining mind you. I'm a lifelong DC fan, but it did seem odd to see DC as the center of attention. This years Comic Con was actually about comics. Hollywood has dominated the event for the past several years, so it was nice to have an actual comic book company be the big news.
Of course I'm excited about the DC 52 launch this September. Granted I think more than a couple of the books will tank, but over all I'm really jazzed that DC is doing something this bold. I'm also glad that they are already looking at the next wave of books and not just depending on the initial 52 to carry everything. Plus Ryan Choi is not only alive again, but he is The Atom and he's in the Justice League!!! They may not have brought Ted back :-( , but at least they gave us Ryan back. Good job DC.
I've been listening to the DC Comic Con panels on the DC Podcast, (or through itunes) which I highly recommend you download and listen to, and there was really only one time that I got aggravated. Jim, Geoff and all the other DC people were very gracious, even when people asked really dumb questions. However, someone asked a decent question about why the number of female creators has dropped and Didio was a dick to them.
As a listener that really pissed me off. The guy asked a legit question and wanted an intelligent answer and Didio got all snarky and down right rude to the guy. I've heard that Didio was an asshat from other people, but I've never met the guy so I can't say for sure. All I know is that he would have deserved it if the guy that asked the question had caught him after the panel and taught him some manners by putting a boot up his ass.
Didio really did seem to come off as a real jerk. Plus he has a bad habit of talking over the creators. Honestly I don't really care what Didio thinks unless it is something that can't be answered by the creators. I'd just rather hear what the creators think or have planned for a character. It isn't the Dan Didio Panel at Dan Didio Con for Dan Didio Comics, but that's kind of how he comes off. Again I wasn't there and was only listening to an audio podcast so I can only say how it seemed from the audio. Maybe I would have a different opinion if I had actually been there and seen it. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but I wasn't impressed with him.
I saw a CBR interview with Quesada @ Comic Con and he was really upbeat and positive about DC's 52 reboot, even though Marvel is again doing their dick move of "tear up DC books and get a Marvel prize". Of course I'm not a big Marvel fan and probably take things like that much more personally than I should. Still he was pretty nice and positive about the whole thing.
In a CBR interview with Todd McFarlane he had nothing positive to say about the DC reboot and from what I hear Mark Waid is pretty anti-DC as well at the moment. It kind of sucks that creators get like that, especially ones I really like, but then I guess if you have a bad experience with an employer you get that way.
Honestly I don't care if they do hate DC and/or Marvel. The way I look at it there are a lot more people reading Marvel and DC books than will ever read their creator owned stuff. People will remember the DC and Marvel characters long after their creator owned stuff is forgotten, even though some of it is pretty damn good.
Since we're on the topics of comics, I'm going to suggest some comics to read. I'm not going to do a whole lot of Marvel and DC stuff, mostly because if you read comics there is a good chance you already read their stuff and are aware of what they offer.
First I am going to recommend The Pound. This is put out by IDW and it's about animal control officers who open their own business in Cleveland and find out that the town if full of monsters. It's a min-series and it isn't the most brilliant of books, but it is a lot of fun. I've read the first 3 issues digitally and I've really enjoyed them. I definitely recommend it.
Second, I'm going to recommend the G.I. Joe books all of which are by IDW. G.I. Joe, Cobra and Snake-eyes are set in the IDW continuity and are really good books. G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero is set in the same universe as the Marvel Comics series. It actually picks up where the Marvel series left off and is also very good read. Of the two universes I prefer the IDW one as it is a bit more adult, but Hama is still doing a great job of picking up where he left off on the Marvel series. Try them both and see which one you like best. Maybe you'll do like me and read both.
House of Mystery by Vertigo is another book I really enjoy. It's just a really fun, twisted book and I can't quit reading it. You can get the trades pretty cheap on Amazon.
Captain America and Bucky, Captain America and Alpha Flight but this should come as no surprise. Cap and Alpha Flight are the only Marvel books I read on a monthly basis. Unless of course they bring back Iron Fist. They are really good books and I highly recommend them.
Showcase presents... I love these trades. Where else can you get up to 25 issues of a comic book series for under $20 (some are under $10 if you use Amazon). Sure they are black and white, but they reprint some classic books and allow you to read some great stories for next to nothing. I buy these every chance I get and enjoy the hell out of them. I highly recommend them.
Lastly I recommend picking up the Captain Canuck Vol 1 and Vol. 2 trades. CC may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I've always enjoyed the character. Or you can pre-order the Complete Edition and get all 15 of the original issues, the summer special and the newspaper strip. I've already got mine pre-ordered.
Lastly I have to give some recognition to Discount Comic Book Service. I've just placed my first order with them, but I have heard nothing but positive things about them and so far the customer service has been great. The prices are amazing and I suggest you check them out.
This year's Comic Con also gave us the teaser trailers for the Amazing Spider-man, Avengers, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes. All movies that I'm eager to see. Well actually I'm not too keen on seeing the origin of Spider-man again, but I will watch it and I definitely want to see the other movies.
The Raimi Spider-man is just a decade old, it's too soon for a complete reboot. The origin movie is still too fresh in our minds. Just like a James Bond movies, I would have been completely OK with them simply casting new people and making another movie in the series, even if they didn't call it Spider-man 4. But I really don't want another origin movie. I have the feeling they are going to do the same thing with Batman once the Nolan Trilogy finishes. I don't want more reboots, just recast and keep going!!
Walking Dead season 2 also had a long trailer, which shows them finally making it to the farm. Granted there were some changes to the story that I like better in the comic, but over all season 1 of the show was great. I only hope season 2 is half as good. I have a friend who has never read a comic book(seriously, he had to ask me how to read one), but loves the show. So I let him read my trades of the series. He likes the comic better too and wishes they had kept more of the comic in the show, but he still loves the show.
As for RPGs, I'm a very disappointed that Exile Game Studios won't have Revelations of Mars, a sourcebook for the awesome Hollow Earth Expedition game, ready by Gen Con. I was really looking forward to getting that book.
My group no longer wanted to play 2e AD&D and made me start running a Pathfinder game once again. My group has grown from 3 to 6 players with only two people (me and 1 player) who are over 17. It's kind of odd to be running a game for a group made up mostly of kids. Two of which are girls (niece and daughter). It's going pretty good, but I have to run a real battle heavy, plot-lite game, with heavy miniatures use, which is something that is not normally my style. So it is kind of a learning experience for me. I've done one shots like this over the years when I just needed a quick game, but this is a whole campaign. It is a little different experience.
I'm still trying to talk them into letting me run something different, but it doesn't look good. A couple of players want me to run a supers game, I suggested a post-apocalyptic game or even a G.I. Joe vs monsters game (1 player liked this), but I can't get everyone on the same page. One player absolutely refuses to play anything but Pathfinder and due to the circumstance of the group it is an all or nothing situation. I can't even get them to play 4e! You would think a group that loves battle so much would be thrilled to go back to 4e, but nope. So we are sticking with Pathfinder.
I also have some podcasts that I've been listening to recently and I want to recommend them.
Raging Bullets, "A DC comics fan podcast" is a really good and show that I thoroughly enjoy. When it comes to strictly comic book podcasts, this one and Backroom Comics are my first two choices. When it comes to video podcasts I go with Exploring the Multiverse.
Last but not least is Star Joes " A podcast dedicated to Star Wars, G.I. Joe, and everything in between. We talk about Comics, Movies, TV Shows, and Toys…lots of Toys…". It's a really fun show if you love '80s comics and toys like G.I. Joe, Transformers, TMNT, Voltron, etc.
These are the shows I've added to my normal rotation of The Nut Gallery, Tekzilla, Hak5, The Tome and 3.5 Private Sanctuary.
Showing posts with label Pathfinder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pathfinder. Show all posts
Friday, July 29, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
My daughter's take on the editions of D&D and other RPGs
As I've mentioned a few times, I have been teaching my teenage daughter to play D&D. We started out with 4e/Essentials, dabbled in 3e/Pathfinder and are currently playing 2e AD&D.
Well, the other morning we were talking about some of my D&D books and I asked her which edition she liked better. She thought about it for a second and decided that she liked 2e the best. We haven't played Pathfinder enough for her to decide how well she likes it, so it is still an unknown at this point. She told me that 4e/Essentials was the "easiest to understand, but the hardest to play" and 2e was a little "confusing to learn, at first," (I think Thac0 is to blame here) but it was the easiest to play. She also said it was the most fun to play.
I asked her why and she said it was because there was so much to keep track of during play in 4e. Marking things and being bloodied and all of the powers and feats along with the skills, seems to feel overwhelming to her. She liked the fact that in 2e a fighter is just a fighter and doesn't have any "spells" (her words not mine) like they do in 4e.
Her explanation of this was that in 2e the character seemed like a real person and in 4e they seemed like superheroes. It was easier for her to " make-believe" she was the fighter in 2e. She was able to suspend disbelief and actually immerse herself in the character and events of an adventure.Where as in 4e she was always aware that it was "just pretend" and she felt as if she were just playing a game. One thing she did say in favor of 4e was that she liked the character generator (I still have the original, downloadable one on my Desktop PC) and she wished we had a good one like that for 2e.
Again Pathfinder is not really included at this point as she has almost no experience with the system. I'm probably going to wait until the Pathfinder Beginners Box comes out later this year before I seriously to get her into a Pathfinder game. I showed it to her and she seems to be really jazzed about playing it, but she wants to wait for the Box. Personally I think that the large core rule book has her a bit intimidated, which is understandable. Given her familiarity with the 4e Red Box, the Pathfinder Beginners Boxed Set seems the best way to introduce her to the game.
Besides 4e & 2e, she's been going through my other RPG books to see what she likes. So far she's intrigued by Rifts and Mutant Epoch, but she's not too sure she wants to play them. She thinks they are too complicated (too much math) and given that she's a new player, I'm inclined to agree. I may try running some simplified versions in the near future.
She has also shown some some interest in d20 Modern, but really hasn't given me a yes or no on that one yet. When I say d20 Modern I'm also including Monte Cook's World of Darkness, Etherscope, d20 Call of Cthulhu and all of the d20 Modern supplements (Future, Past, Cyberspace). I use all of those as d20 Modern sourcebooks and run it all as one game, so I could run anything from gothic horror and urban fantasy to post apocalyptic and pulp to space opera with the same characters. While I wish the d20 Modern core had classes that were more similar to D&D than the generic ones that it uses, it is still one of my favorite systems. It is just too versatile.
I've been trying to get her into Hollow Earth Expedition because I love that system, but she seems kind of cold towards that one. I may try running a simple zombie game with the system and see how she likes that.
I'm also thinking about running All Flesh Must Be Eaten and Buffy. She likes zombies and she loves Buffy so those could be winners. As a matter of fact in 1st grade she had to write a paper about what career she wanted to pursue when she grew up and being a vampire slayer was what she wrote about. That's my girl. So Buffy may appeal to her and the system isn't hard.
I've shown her all of my retro-clones and she is adamant that see will not be playing them. She keeps saying that they seem to be "too old". I keep explaining that they are new games, that are just made to look and feel like old ones, but she's not interested. When we were having our D&D discussion I asked her about this and she stuck with the "too old" reason. She's of a mind that anything before 2e is just too outdated to play.
I tried pointing out that she is completely happy to play the original Nintendo and Sega Genesis, which were out before she was born, but that line of reasoning didn't take. She just responded that they were "different" and the same rules didn't apply to them. I even tried talking her into trying my recently re-aquired Expert rules or the Rules Cyclopedia, but both were a no go.
Hearing her and her cousin, whom I discussed this with over the weekend, both respond like this older editions and retroclones got me to thinking. It never really occurred to me how much presentation matters. Once you are a gamer, those books that emulate the books you remember from childhood, or that you have come to appreciate through experience, aren't likely to appeal to the younger generation. To them playing a retro-clone or older edition of D&D is the same as using a 1st edition ipod when all their friends have the current edition. Perhaps a better analogy would be to compare retroclones as a computer running windows 95 and 4e as a computer running Vista or Win7. I get a kick out of playing with an old computer so the older editions have some appeal to me, more so in curiosity/nostalgia than function, but the younger crowd doesn't have that frame of reference.
I remember my first Windows 95 computer, I remember learning D&D with the Expert rules. Revisiting those old games and having things that emulate that helps keep those days alive in some nostalgic way. For my daughter they just appear to be older and outdated versions that lack the fine-tuning and advances of the newer stuff.
How do I explain her liking 2e? I'm not really sure. Part of me things she remembers 2e because it was the edition we played when she was little. She's seen the books on my shelf her entire life and she has heard us talk about our old 2e games countless times. Even if she has just started playing it, she has a frame of reference and a familiarity with it. The same thing can be said for 3e/Pathfinder. Plus she knows how much I like it. Teens may often think their parents are idiots who don't understand them, but they still love us (most of the time) and want to like the things we like. Even if they don't always want to show it.
She may not take to 3e/Pathfinder system, but she sure knows about and likes Eberron, Forgotten Realm and Dragonlance. She's watched my groups enjoy many adventures in those worlds so they are familiar. Especially FR as we also played that in 2e.
4e is the newest kid on the block and even though she may like 2e better, she still likes 4e and would rather play it than a retroclone or older edition.
Well, the other morning we were talking about some of my D&D books and I asked her which edition she liked better. She thought about it for a second and decided that she liked 2e the best. We haven't played Pathfinder enough for her to decide how well she likes it, so it is still an unknown at this point. She told me that 4e/Essentials was the "easiest to understand, but the hardest to play" and 2e was a little "confusing to learn, at first," (I think Thac0 is to blame here) but it was the easiest to play. She also said it was the most fun to play.
I asked her why and she said it was because there was so much to keep track of during play in 4e. Marking things and being bloodied and all of the powers and feats along with the skills, seems to feel overwhelming to her. She liked the fact that in 2e a fighter is just a fighter and doesn't have any "spells" (her words not mine) like they do in 4e.
Her explanation of this was that in 2e the character seemed like a real person and in 4e they seemed like superheroes. It was easier for her to " make-believe" she was the fighter in 2e. She was able to suspend disbelief and actually immerse herself in the character and events of an adventure.Where as in 4e she was always aware that it was "just pretend" and she felt as if she were just playing a game. One thing she did say in favor of 4e was that she liked the character generator (I still have the original, downloadable one on my Desktop PC) and she wished we had a good one like that for 2e.
Again Pathfinder is not really included at this point as she has almost no experience with the system. I'm probably going to wait until the Pathfinder Beginners Box comes out later this year before I seriously to get her into a Pathfinder game. I showed it to her and she seems to be really jazzed about playing it, but she wants to wait for the Box. Personally I think that the large core rule book has her a bit intimidated, which is understandable. Given her familiarity with the 4e Red Box, the Pathfinder Beginners Boxed Set seems the best way to introduce her to the game.
Besides 4e & 2e, she's been going through my other RPG books to see what she likes. So far she's intrigued by Rifts and Mutant Epoch, but she's not too sure she wants to play them. She thinks they are too complicated (too much math) and given that she's a new player, I'm inclined to agree. I may try running some simplified versions in the near future.
She has also shown some some interest in d20 Modern, but really hasn't given me a yes or no on that one yet. When I say d20 Modern I'm also including Monte Cook's World of Darkness, Etherscope, d20 Call of Cthulhu and all of the d20 Modern supplements (Future, Past, Cyberspace). I use all of those as d20 Modern sourcebooks and run it all as one game, so I could run anything from gothic horror and urban fantasy to post apocalyptic and pulp to space opera with the same characters. While I wish the d20 Modern core had classes that were more similar to D&D than the generic ones that it uses, it is still one of my favorite systems. It is just too versatile.
I've been trying to get her into Hollow Earth Expedition because I love that system, but she seems kind of cold towards that one. I may try running a simple zombie game with the system and see how she likes that.
I'm also thinking about running All Flesh Must Be Eaten and Buffy. She likes zombies and she loves Buffy so those could be winners. As a matter of fact in 1st grade she had to write a paper about what career she wanted to pursue when she grew up and being a vampire slayer was what she wrote about. That's my girl. So Buffy may appeal to her and the system isn't hard.
I've shown her all of my retro-clones and she is adamant that see will not be playing them. She keeps saying that they seem to be "too old". I keep explaining that they are new games, that are just made to look and feel like old ones, but she's not interested. When we were having our D&D discussion I asked her about this and she stuck with the "too old" reason. She's of a mind that anything before 2e is just too outdated to play.
I tried pointing out that she is completely happy to play the original Nintendo and Sega Genesis, which were out before she was born, but that line of reasoning didn't take. She just responded that they were "different" and the same rules didn't apply to them. I even tried talking her into trying my recently re-aquired Expert rules or the Rules Cyclopedia, but both were a no go.
Hearing her and her cousin, whom I discussed this with over the weekend, both respond like this older editions and retroclones got me to thinking. It never really occurred to me how much presentation matters. Once you are a gamer, those books that emulate the books you remember from childhood, or that you have come to appreciate through experience, aren't likely to appeal to the younger generation. To them playing a retro-clone or older edition of D&D is the same as using a 1st edition ipod when all their friends have the current edition. Perhaps a better analogy would be to compare retroclones as a computer running windows 95 and 4e as a computer running Vista or Win7. I get a kick out of playing with an old computer so the older editions have some appeal to me, more so in curiosity/nostalgia than function, but the younger crowd doesn't have that frame of reference.
I remember my first Windows 95 computer, I remember learning D&D with the Expert rules. Revisiting those old games and having things that emulate that helps keep those days alive in some nostalgic way. For my daughter they just appear to be older and outdated versions that lack the fine-tuning and advances of the newer stuff.
How do I explain her liking 2e? I'm not really sure. Part of me things she remembers 2e because it was the edition we played when she was little. She's seen the books on my shelf her entire life and she has heard us talk about our old 2e games countless times. Even if she has just started playing it, she has a frame of reference and a familiarity with it. The same thing can be said for 3e/Pathfinder. Plus she knows how much I like it. Teens may often think their parents are idiots who don't understand them, but they still love us (most of the time) and want to like the things we like. Even if they don't always want to show it.
She may not take to 3e/Pathfinder system, but she sure knows about and likes Eberron, Forgotten Realm and Dragonlance. She's watched my groups enjoy many adventures in those worlds so they are familiar. Especially FR as we also played that in 2e.
4e is the newest kid on the block and even though she may like 2e better, she still likes 4e and would rather play it than a retroclone or older edition.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Gaming with the kid
My daughter and I are set to run through another D&D Essentials game this weekend. I'm thinking I may try to get her to run a thief or cleric instead of her standard Slayer. I'd like to run a stealth oriented game and see how she does.
Since she still has issues remembering things like healing surges, I'll probably run a tag along GMPC to help her out from time to time, maybe a thief catcher from the local town watch, a magic user of some kind or an orphan from town that follows her around. I'll try to post a recap of how things went.
Also I just started teaching her how to play Magic: the Gathering. I started playing Magic back when it was first released ('93-'94?) and quit around '98. I think that was around the time Tempest was released. My wife and I had a brief run playing Magic between 2001 and 2002, but she lost interest in it when she quit gaming with me and my group. So I haven't played magic in damn near a decade but managed to talk my daughter into giving it a try this past weekend.
I dug out my cards and let her use one of my pre-made decks. We used core set only because I wanted to keep her first time simple. Besides I prefer the core set anyway. I don't like keeping track of all the weird mechanics that some of the expansions seem to use.
She loved it and so I bought her a deck of 2011 core set(Blue & White) the other day. She has been itching to play ever since. She's also pretty cocky about it, making bold claims that she is going to kick my butt and asking me how I think it will feel to get whooped by a girl. She is competitive just like her mom. Naturally I can't let a teenager talk smack to me in regards to a game I've been playing (off and on) since it was first released so I got her a box of tissues and told her she'd need them to dry the tears after the massive beat down I'm going to give her.
It is all in good fun and she knows I really don't care if she wins, but it's nice to spend time with her and see her enjoying things I enjoy as well. I spent too many years sitting through Winx and Barbie movies and playing kiddie games with her, so I've paid my dues. I also know that since she's entering her teen years it won't be long before parents become the most uncool people in the world. Something to be avoided when possible.
I'm going to enjoy these times I get to game with her and hope that one day(when she's 35-40, has a Phd and a successful career) she'll meet a nice boy that likes D&D and Magic and they'll raise a whole new generation of geeks. Of course I'll expect to be invited over for game night.
Since she still has issues remembering things like healing surges, I'll probably run a tag along GMPC to help her out from time to time, maybe a thief catcher from the local town watch, a magic user of some kind or an orphan from town that follows her around. I'll try to post a recap of how things went.
Also I just started teaching her how to play Magic: the Gathering. I started playing Magic back when it was first released ('93-'94?) and quit around '98. I think that was around the time Tempest was released. My wife and I had a brief run playing Magic between 2001 and 2002, but she lost interest in it when she quit gaming with me and my group. So I haven't played magic in damn near a decade but managed to talk my daughter into giving it a try this past weekend.
I dug out my cards and let her use one of my pre-made decks. We used core set only because I wanted to keep her first time simple. Besides I prefer the core set anyway. I don't like keeping track of all the weird mechanics that some of the expansions seem to use.
She loved it and so I bought her a deck of 2011 core set(Blue & White) the other day. She has been itching to play ever since. She's also pretty cocky about it, making bold claims that she is going to kick my butt and asking me how I think it will feel to get whooped by a girl. She is competitive just like her mom. Naturally I can't let a teenager talk smack to me in regards to a game I've been playing (off and on) since it was first released so I got her a box of tissues and told her she'd need them to dry the tears after the massive beat down I'm going to give her.
It is all in good fun and she knows I really don't care if she wins, but it's nice to spend time with her and see her enjoying things I enjoy as well. I spent too many years sitting through Winx and Barbie movies and playing kiddie games with her, so I've paid my dues. I also know that since she's entering her teen years it won't be long before parents become the most uncool people in the world. Something to be avoided when possible.
I'm going to enjoy these times I get to game with her and hope that one day(when she's 35-40, has a Phd and a successful career) she'll meet a nice boy that likes D&D and Magic and they'll raise a whole new generation of geeks. Of course I'll expect to be invited over for game night.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Musings on Essentials and D&D in general
I was just sitting here reading through Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms and listening to The Nut Gallery Review episode 52 (a very good movie and game podcast by occasional Geek Gazette contributor Jason James) when I realized how much I missed Pathfinder.
I started playing Essentials when my daughter asked to learn D&D and at first I really liked it. Perhaps it was just the fact that Essentials was new and shiny or maybe it was because I was thrilled to see my daughter taking an interest in gaming, but now the game is losing its luster. For some reason Essentials just isn't as much fun for me to run. My daughter is having a good time, which is the most important part, but I keep getting bored. I just keep feeling as I'm boxed in, stifled.
Don't get me wrong I still like Essentials far better than I did original 4e, but the more we play the more I find that I just don't like the system as much as I do 3.x/Pathfinder. I tried running Essentials the same way I have been running games for over 20 years, graph paper and no minis, and with a few minor tweaks it works just fine. Although I have found that running one on one games with the 4e system is a bit more difficult. I never gave the claims that 4e was too team oriented much thought until I started running solo adventures. It isn't impossible, it just requires a bit more prep.
Thinking that perhaps I needed to change my DMing style and run the game in a manner closer to how it was designed, I broke out the battle maps and monster pogs that come with the DM kit. My daughter didn't care for this much (she suddenly had a hankering to play Heroscape after our first time playing this way) and I didn't like it at all. It felt very much like playing a board game and neither of us liked having to take the time to work out the various minis related rules during combat. It really slowed down the game and drained any sense of cinematic adventure that we tend to emulate in my normal style of gaming.
Granted this was my first time really running a game like this so I wasn't 100% comfortable with it, but it didn't take long for me to figure out that I'm not fond of that style. Perhaps my experience would be different if I were on the other side of the screen, but since I've been DMing pretty much every game I've played for the past 20+ years I can't say for sure. Things might also feel different if I were running a full party instead of one on one adventures, but I doubt it. I actually think it would have been an even worse experience. I've run more than a few systems in my time and have not gotten as bored as I did running the more tactical style 4e is designed for.
While I'm happy to know that I have Pathfinder, tons of 3.x books, all of my older edition books, some great OSR games and countless other system to fall back on, I'm actually kind of sad that I find myself not enjoying the current edition of D&D. I really want to like it, especially now that I've gotten my daughter to play. She'll play whatever I want, but I wanted her to love D&D as much as I did at her age.
I've been playing D&D for over 20 years and until the release of 4e I've never thought negatively about an edition of the game. I've had problems with certain books or aspects of various editions, and definitely taken issue with WotC on a few occasions, but never have I had a problem with the system as a whole. It's kind of depressing.
While I was thinking about all of this the nutgallery gang were discussing M. Knight Shyamalan's and their thoughts about his movie(s). This got me to thinking about my issues with 4e.
As I said before I have had issues, though not as many, with every edition of D&D as well as nearly every game I have ever played. No game is perfect. So what would I want WotC to do to make me like D&D again? What could they do to bring back all of us that gravitated towards Pathfinder, the OSR games or any other system that has replaced D&D on countless gaming tables?
Honestly I don't know, but this did get thinking about how WotC seems to view those of us that just can't stay or even get on the 4e bandwagon as acceptable losses. This thinking is what helped Pathfinder tie D&D for the #1 RPG slot recently. It also seems to drive the critical view of WotC that I and many other gamers have expressed over the past few years.
Unless I've been misinformed WotC owns the TSR name. Why don't they use it for special products?There are many of us that enjoy older editions and the OSR games. So why doesn't WotC release special or limited edition revised versions of older editions? I'm not talking about 4e with artwork from an older edition slapped on the front, but an actual revised version of older editions.
I'd pay $50 for an all in one AD&D rule book in a heartbeat. Something like an AD&D Rules Cyclopedia with revised/updated rules, some monsters and maybe even some setting info would be great. They could even take a page from S&W and have both Thac0/Descending AC and BAB/Ascending AC for those of us that do not remember Thac0 fondly.
Since 3.x is still going strong as Pathfinder, why doesn't WotC do the same thing for 3.x? Why just give up those customers? Update, revise and streamline 3rd edition(fix the stuff that Pathfinder didn't), release it under AD&D with a nifty TSR label as an all in one, stand alone Rules Cyclopedia type book and I'm dropping another $50.
If none of that seems possible, I'm sure someone will be happy to point out why, then why don't they find out what makes people love the older editions (OD&D thru 3.x) and what people do like about 4e/Essentials. Then release a completely separate AD&D game combining as much of all the best parts of each edition as they can. Granted this won't make everyone happy, and the game may suck, I don't know, but as someone pointed out on one of the OSR blogs (sorry I can't remember who), the majority of OSR games are based off of 3.x anyway. It can be done.
Why has WotC let Paizo take such as large section of their customer base? I'm not complaining. As far as I'm concerned Paizo outclasses WotC on multiple levels and I've been a Paizo fan since they started publishing Dragon. I hope they not only continue to tie WotC for the #1 spot, but I won't complain if they completely crush WotC and end up owning the D&D brand. (I know it ain't happening, but I can dream) Still from a business POV it just seems counterproductive to be ok with driving off customers.
It would be a different matter if they were just losing a few customers, but when it is enough to allow a publisher that stuck with the older edition of your game to tie you in sales, that should speak loud and clear to the suits and bean counters. 4e is a fine, solid game for people who like that style, I'm not saying the game is bad. In fact I think 4e is mechanically superior than the older editions in several ways, but for me it just can't stand up to 3.x, Pathfinder or the ton of quality OSR games available in terms of fun.
I started playing Essentials when my daughter asked to learn D&D and at first I really liked it. Perhaps it was just the fact that Essentials was new and shiny or maybe it was because I was thrilled to see my daughter taking an interest in gaming, but now the game is losing its luster. For some reason Essentials just isn't as much fun for me to run. My daughter is having a good time, which is the most important part, but I keep getting bored. I just keep feeling as I'm boxed in, stifled.
Don't get me wrong I still like Essentials far better than I did original 4e, but the more we play the more I find that I just don't like the system as much as I do 3.x/Pathfinder. I tried running Essentials the same way I have been running games for over 20 years, graph paper and no minis, and with a few minor tweaks it works just fine. Although I have found that running one on one games with the 4e system is a bit more difficult. I never gave the claims that 4e was too team oriented much thought until I started running solo adventures. It isn't impossible, it just requires a bit more prep.
Thinking that perhaps I needed to change my DMing style and run the game in a manner closer to how it was designed, I broke out the battle maps and monster pogs that come with the DM kit. My daughter didn't care for this much (she suddenly had a hankering to play Heroscape after our first time playing this way) and I didn't like it at all. It felt very much like playing a board game and neither of us liked having to take the time to work out the various minis related rules during combat. It really slowed down the game and drained any sense of cinematic adventure that we tend to emulate in my normal style of gaming.
Granted this was my first time really running a game like this so I wasn't 100% comfortable with it, but it didn't take long for me to figure out that I'm not fond of that style. Perhaps my experience would be different if I were on the other side of the screen, but since I've been DMing pretty much every game I've played for the past 20+ years I can't say for sure. Things might also feel different if I were running a full party instead of one on one adventures, but I doubt it. I actually think it would have been an even worse experience. I've run more than a few systems in my time and have not gotten as bored as I did running the more tactical style 4e is designed for.
While I'm happy to know that I have Pathfinder, tons of 3.x books, all of my older edition books, some great OSR games and countless other system to fall back on, I'm actually kind of sad that I find myself not enjoying the current edition of D&D. I really want to like it, especially now that I've gotten my daughter to play. She'll play whatever I want, but I wanted her to love D&D as much as I did at her age.
I've been playing D&D for over 20 years and until the release of 4e I've never thought negatively about an edition of the game. I've had problems with certain books or aspects of various editions, and definitely taken issue with WotC on a few occasions, but never have I had a problem with the system as a whole. It's kind of depressing.
While I was thinking about all of this the nutgallery gang were discussing M. Knight Shyamalan's and their thoughts about his movie(s). This got me to thinking about my issues with 4e.
As I said before I have had issues, though not as many, with every edition of D&D as well as nearly every game I have ever played. No game is perfect. So what would I want WotC to do to make me like D&D again? What could they do to bring back all of us that gravitated towards Pathfinder, the OSR games or any other system that has replaced D&D on countless gaming tables?
Honestly I don't know, but this did get thinking about how WotC seems to view those of us that just can't stay or even get on the 4e bandwagon as acceptable losses. This thinking is what helped Pathfinder tie D&D for the #1 RPG slot recently. It also seems to drive the critical view of WotC that I and many other gamers have expressed over the past few years.
Unless I've been misinformed WotC owns the TSR name. Why don't they use it for special products?There are many of us that enjoy older editions and the OSR games. So why doesn't WotC release special or limited edition revised versions of older editions? I'm not talking about 4e with artwork from an older edition slapped on the front, but an actual revised version of older editions.
I'd pay $50 for an all in one AD&D rule book in a heartbeat. Something like an AD&D Rules Cyclopedia with revised/updated rules, some monsters and maybe even some setting info would be great. They could even take a page from S&W and have both Thac0/Descending AC and BAB/Ascending AC for those of us that do not remember Thac0 fondly.
Since 3.x is still going strong as Pathfinder, why doesn't WotC do the same thing for 3.x? Why just give up those customers? Update, revise and streamline 3rd edition(fix the stuff that Pathfinder didn't), release it under AD&D with a nifty TSR label as an all in one, stand alone Rules Cyclopedia type book and I'm dropping another $50.
If none of that seems possible, I'm sure someone will be happy to point out why, then why don't they find out what makes people love the older editions (OD&D thru 3.x) and what people do like about 4e/Essentials. Then release a completely separate AD&D game combining as much of all the best parts of each edition as they can. Granted this won't make everyone happy, and the game may suck, I don't know, but as someone pointed out on one of the OSR blogs (sorry I can't remember who), the majority of OSR games are based off of 3.x anyway. It can be done.
Why has WotC let Paizo take such as large section of their customer base? I'm not complaining. As far as I'm concerned Paizo outclasses WotC on multiple levels and I've been a Paizo fan since they started publishing Dragon. I hope they not only continue to tie WotC for the #1 spot, but I won't complain if they completely crush WotC and end up owning the D&D brand. (I know it ain't happening, but I can dream) Still from a business POV it just seems counterproductive to be ok with driving off customers.
It would be a different matter if they were just losing a few customers, but when it is enough to allow a publisher that stuck with the older edition of your game to tie you in sales, that should speak loud and clear to the suits and bean counters. 4e is a fine, solid game for people who like that style, I'm not saying the game is bad. In fact I think 4e is mechanically superior than the older editions in several ways, but for me it just can't stand up to 3.x, Pathfinder or the ton of quality OSR games available in terms of fun.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Edition Wars? Are we really still doing that $#!^?
While I don't get a lot of quality Internet time anymore, I do try to visit all the blogs and forums I can when the opportunity presents itself. Unfortunately I still keep seeing a lot of old school vs new school, pathfinder vs 4e, system x vs system y, I'm right and your wrong, I'm smart and you're dumb, blah blah blah blah.
I actually encourage the younger/newer gamers that I meet to stay far away from a many of the blogs and message boards related to our hobby. If I were looking at a lot of these posts from the perspective of a newbie or even a person who is just returning to the hobby, I'd want to stay far away from other gamers.
It is really sad that people who claim to love an industry so much spend so much time belittling not only another person's favorite game, but the people that like said game. What's even more sad is that a fairly large percentage of these gamers are adults and have been with the hobby for 10+ years. I think it would be safe to say that more than likely these same people are at the very least in their 20's, yet still resorting to childlike, playground behavior.
The plain and simple fact of the matter is that what game you like, what game I like, and what game some guy in Zimbabwe likes means jack shit. The only time people need to like the same game is if they are in the same gaming group. What you like has absolutely no impact on what I like and vice versa. So why the need to "prove" your game is better? I just don't get it.
I started playing RPG's well over 20 years ago with a hodge podge of D&D books from the 70's, AD&D books from the 80's, and a few miscellaneous books that came from various box sets. All of which my mom bought me at a yard sale. My friends and I loved the D&D cartoon so convincing them to play the game was not difficult.
None of us knew a single person that had ever played D&D and because our books were from different editions, we didn't have the best understanding of how the game was supposed to be played. Hell we didn't even have any of those funny dice the books said we needed and our Monster Manual was a little booklet that contained about 10 monsters.
So we house-ruled the shit out of it, created our own monsters and emptied every game of Yahtzee in our homes of their d6's. Our first characters sheets were on blank pieces of notebooks paper as were our dungeon maps. Was our game being played "correctly", were a bunch of kids with only the vaguest understanding of the game able to create balanced monsters and proper house-rules, not by a long shot. Yet, despite our handicaps, those games are some of my fondest gaming memories.
I moved a few months later and didn't find anyone to play D&D with until I was a freshman in high school. By this time I'd gotten some of those funny dice, graph paper, some actual characters sheets and because I still longed to play I bought more books(I got a real monster manual) when I got the money, and had a better understanding of the game.
Naturally my high school gaming group was more experienced, so our games became a little more detailed and "proper" than my original group. The DM we played with was big on playing by the rules and we were all OK with that, for a while.
When he was unavailable we'd all take turns running games and when it was my turn, the games tended to be more like the ones in my original group. I only used the rules as a guideline and always tried to make sure the game was fun above all else. I never tried to get a TPK, though it did happen. I was a little too generous with the treasure, but I also put the group up against some opponents that were way out of their league. I required the players to think and react rather than relying on what a rule said. No one ever whined that my games were broken or unbalanced. No one ever bitched and moaned that I had done exactly the opposite of what a rule said to do. None of that mattered because we were there to have fun and as long as that was accomplished then the game was a success.
Since we all went to school together there were times we just wrote down a few stats on some notebook paper, from memory if possible otherwise we just made them up, and I'd run games for the group right there in the back of class. We didn't take our gaming gear to school so we had no dice, I made up the stats for monsters and yet we still had fun. It was with this group, during those at school games, that I started expanding my RPG experience to include sci-fi, supers and other genres besides fantasy. We were making the stuff up so it didn't matter whether we were fighting dragons, zombies or Darth Vader.
The most important part of all of this is the "we". That's what matters, everyone in the group is having a good time and participating. Eventually, I became a full time DM for a different group and have pretty much run every single game I've played in since. I've always let my players have a say in what kind of games I ran and what was fair. While I may come up with the scenarios and make the rulings on things, the game isn't just about me.
When I started playing D&D, I had no understanding of the rules and we made the best of the situation. As I got more books and a better understanding of the game I began to incorporate more of what the rulebooks said. After all the creators of those games had often thought of rules for things that I had never encountered, and they were often pretty good rules. Still those older editions were pretty light on rules, when compared with newer games.
As the years progressed players wanted rules to cover more things that popped up in game or options that officially allowed them to do something. So the game creators obliged and thus we got 2e AD&D, which was a "tighter" game than 1e or basic. Then came 3e and the d20 system.
Of all the D&D editions I feel that 3e was quite simply the most versatile, but with that versatility came an abundance of rules. This same rules/option increase can be seen in just about every single system that has survived from those earlier days. It doesn't matter if you play Palladium, Hero, or D&D, the core books have gotten thicker or there are more of them, but that's not necessarily bad.
All these extra rules and options have done is put down on paper the stuff we just made up back when I first started playing. They brought consistency to our games. Back then if someone new came into our group we had to explain all the house-rules we had made up to give us the options we wanted. Even though we all played D&D, the way my grouped interpreted the looser rules may be very different than how your group interpreted them.
With the newer editions it became easier to walk in and play with other gaming groups and know what was going on with only a quick run down of the house-rules. Which once the the rulebooks began leaning towards making what you can do "official", those lists of house-rules seem to be much, much shorter than they were 20+ years ago, if they even exist at all.
Did all of these rules and options "break" our beloved game? No, because in the front of nearly every fucking RPG book I own it clearly states that if you don't like a rule or an option in the book, then throw the damn thing out. The only important part is having fun. The RPG industry didn't burden us with a bunch of rules that tied our hands and kept us from doing things we wanted to do, we did that to ourselves.
This brings me to the point of this little diatribe of mine. The edition wars or even system wars are juvenile and stupid. There is not a single thing you can do with your edition or system that I can't do with mine and vice verse. Unless of course one of us lacks the imagination and ability to think freely or feels like we must slavishly adhere to the rules. I mean come on, they are just game books and it isn't as if they are divinely handed down to us.
If I want "x" ability/spell/skill to do something in my game and my group feels it is OK, then that is how it will be. If I want to run a skills challenge, which I have been doing for years, I don't have to do it the way it says in some rule book. Although I can do it just as it is written, I am just as likely to do it in a way that contradicts the rules. Primarily to keep the story moving but also because I think it will benefit the game.
Now to be clear I don't throw out all the parts of a system and just do whatever comes to mind. I actually like the fact that the books come with options and solutions to things I used to have to make up on the fly. So yes I do like my rules, but I am not their slave.
If I want to play an "old school" game, I can break out my Rules Cyclopedia, AD&D 2e books, Villains & Vigilantes, any Palldium book, or a retro-clone (Dark Dungeons, Basic Fantasy RPG, GORE & OSRIC are my personal favorites). Of course I can play the exact same kind of "old school" game with D&D 3e, Pathfinder, D&D 4e, Hollow Earth Expedition, Cortex, L5R, Call of Cthulhu, Mutants & Masterminds, Savage Worlds or pretty damn near any RPG on the market. The reverse is true if I want to play a "new school" game. All the rules do is give you the basics, and some guidelines that you can follow or ignore. It's not the rules or the system that decides how a game is played, it's you.
I own hundreds of RPG books and I cherish every one of them. There are some I prefer over others for one reason or another, but I have gotten something good out of every single book I own. I have books for systems that I probably will never run and I have books that are falling apart because I use them so much, but none of them are useless or worthless.
Now is about the time that some of you, the one or two that actually read what I write, may be calling shenanigans. After all haven't I said that the Palladium system needs to be reworked and that I quit playing 4e because my group and I don't really like it? Yes I have and I do stand by every word.
At it's core the Palladium system isn't bad. The basics are pretty much just like every other RPG, you have a target number, roll dice to hit. The problem with Palladium is that their information (options, rules, etc) are spread out over so many books and even within the core Rifts book are poorly organized. The system (predominately Rifts) has become an unwieldy mess of books and rules. As common as it is for some people to call out WotC for being money grabbing jerks, Palladium is just as guilty.
Can you run/play Rifts with just the core Rifts book? Sure, but you will only have a handful of villains, unless the GM roles up some GMPC villains using the O.C.C's in the book, and there is only one R.C.C. Want to play something other than a human or dragon hatchling, too bad you have to buy another book. Want to know more about magic, there are more books for that. Want to fight vampires, aliens or some other monsters, too bad you need more books. It almost seems as if each Palladium books is equal parts game resource and advertisement for other Palladium books.
Don't get me wrong, and I've said this before, I love Palladium's stuff. I also wish my gaming group were willing to play the system. They just don't like it and don't want to buy the books. When people tell you that house-ruling is pretty much required to make the game "playable" (I have been told this more than once by people devoted to Palladium. To be quite honest even Mr. Siembieda, who is a really nice guy, once told me at Gen Con years ago that alot of players throw out a majority of the system and run it on house-rules), then the system has gotten too bloated for its own good and could use some fine tuning. What's the sense in even having rulebooks if you end up throwing most of the stuff out? This is an instance where a new edition is not a bad idea. Still I just can't help being drawn to this system. The 50+ Palladium books I own can attest to that.
As for 4e I personally don't have a major problem with the system, it does exactly what it is designed to do. My group and I just don't want to play it.
I freely admit to being a fan of 3.x and Pathfinder is our system of choice. I own 4e books, I've ran 4e games but my group clearly told me they wanted to play "D&D" (which to them is Pathfinder or any older D&D edition). 4e just wasn't their cup of tea.
As a GM/DM, 4e made prep time easier and I won't deny that, but the group didn't like the character options. They really didn't like the fact that the classes were designed to fill a specific role and I can't disagree with them on that. I could have easily thrown out what we didn't like about the game, but why bother when we would have just changed it into Pathfinder. So we stuck with 3.x and Pathfinder is our default fantasy game.
Of course I think Pathfinder made GM prep much easier when compared to 3e or 3.5. Of course that is just my opinion. My players like the changes to classes and so we are happy with the system. We have no reason to change.
Now where I have a major issue is with WotC. In the lead up to 4e they stated more than once that everyone talking about 4e was wrong. There was no 4e and 3.x was going to be around for a while. I also remember more than a few comments by WotC staff members at Gen Con and on message boards that leaned heavily towards insulting when it they spoke about the people saying that 4e was being developed. (OK on the boards they claimed to be WotC staff, and I took them on their word, but can not prove the validity of this.) Then the very next year at Gen Con, they not only announced 4e, but said that they had been working on it for something like 2 years.
They made this fine presentation about all this really cool stuff that was going to be available when the game was released and then didn't come through. I actually got excited about some of the features they were supposed to have available, but the closer it came to 4e's release, they still didn't even have test versions up.
So my beef with 4e is and has always been WotC's attitude towards their fans. At the time they seemed to be telling us that because they own D&D all of us mindless, geeky sheep would believe and buy whatever they shoveled our way. I just didn't take too kindly to that attitude. Now I know there are some really great people working at WotC, a few of which hinted at displeasure with the company's POV during some brief conversations and this is not their individual views, but it did and still does seem to be the WotC/Hasbro view. I gave the game a chance and still may even buy the Red Box, but I won't pretend that their actions didn't sour my view of WotC and the current D&D brand a great deal.
Now the thing I find the most upsetting is the things I continue to see around the net. I freely admit that fans of all editions have been openly acting like royal asses, but I find that more often than not a majority of this poor behavior is coming from 4e fans.
I've seen insults towards 3.x, OSR and player's of completely different systems that range from them being mindless sheep (I'll address this in minute) to them being simple or close minded. WTF?!? How can having a preference for a certain system or edition mean you are dumb or close minded? I don't think less of 4e players because of their choice. Hell if you were running a 4e game and asked me to play I'd probably do so gladly, unless I was running a game that same night. As fun as it can be to GM a game it is nice to sit on the other side of the screen every once in a while.
Now as for the mindless sheep comments, which seem to be the most popular, how is continuing to buy products that support the game you are already playing more like being mindless sheep that replacing all those books you bought just because there is a shiny, new, but completely incompatible edition available? It seems to me that the sheep like behavior is going with the rest of the flock to the shiny new pasture, when the old pasture was just fine.
There have also been a lot of insults thrown towards Paizo because they decided to stick with the edition that basically created the company. Mostly that they are selfish, money hungry hacks. Again I have to give a big WTF?!?
Just like every other company, including WotC/Hasbro, they are there to make money. There is nothing wrong with that and they likely wouldn't last long if they didn't at least try to make a profit. The important thing is how they view and treat their fans/customers. Besides there was a demand for a product that they were already knowledgeable about, so why shouldn't they keep going with it?
I've had nothing but good experiences dealing with Paizo staff and customer service and have yet to hear anyone that has honestly dealt with them say different. While I have never personally dealt with WotC in that way, I have heard just the opposite about them.
Paizo includes all of their potential customers in their playtests, and everyone from freelancers up to the top bosses are on the message boards interacting with fans, asking and answering questions. I've never seen that on the WotC boards. The only time I've had interaction with, supposed, WotC employees online has been on other boards. Like I said before most of them that I've spoken with, online or in person, are great people who love gaming as much as the rest of us. (I've only met one WotC employee, whom I think was a boss, that was a dick in person. Right after that, and maybe because of it I don't know for sure, a couple of other WotC creators whose name I won't mention, spent a good 10 minutes just chatting with me at Gen Con) The company is where my problem starts and stops.
Now before it seems like I'm picking on the 4e gang, let me set this straight. I'm not saying, in any way that 4e players as a whole are being asses online. That would not only be a generalization, but a very poor one at that. I know a few 4e players, online only, I don't know anyone personally that still plays 4e, and they seem like stand up guys and gals. So for the "good guys" in the 4e gang, don't be offended. Of course I do realize that I'm probably going to get ripped to shreds in the comments, but I know it is just that select group of loudmouths and they do not represent the 4e group as a whole.
It has just been my personal experience that the most hostile gamers on message-boards seem to be the ones claiming to be 4e players. I say "claiming to be" because I don't know them personally and they could just be ass hats that are trying to stir up trouble. It is just that a majority of these jerks represent themselves as 4e players and given that it would be kind of silly for a non-gamer to spend time on RPG boards just to stir up an edition war, I accept that they are in fact 4e players.
Now to turn my accusing little fingers away from the 4e crowd I have to say that I'm disappointed in a lot of the OSR players as well. Most of the old school gang seem to be 30+ years old and yet too many of them have been participating in the edition bashing as well. I expect better from people in my age group (Again this is only directed towards the jerks who continue to stir up trouble and insult fans of newer editions). Going old school is fine, I'm running a Rules Cyclopedia game next weekend, but old school does not equal better. It is just your preferred style of play. Enough with the elitist attitude. There is nothing wrong with people playing AD&D 1e/2e, 3.x/Pathfinder, 4e or any other d20 game on the market. I would encourage anyone, especially someone new to the hobby, to play which ever edition/system they want, just as long as they are playing and keeping the hobby alive.
Now as for the 3.x/Pathfinder group. I've seen more than a couple of you stirring up trouble on the boards as well. Please stop acting like dip shits. Just because some of us stuck with a version of the rules we prefer does not make us anymore superior to other players than they are to us. 3.x/Pathfinder may be my system of choice, but it is not the end all, be all of gaming. Every system/edition has its flaws, if you claim something different then you aren't reading the same books I am.
In all sincerity, I'm really not trying to be mean or attempting to offend anyone. I'm just really upset with how I see some of my fellow gamers acting towards one another. I just think it would better serve the community and industry if we all got along better and supported each other. Even if our opinions differ. Otherwise we may be responsible for tearing apart the very hobby we all claim to love so much.
One last thing. For all of you that claim Pathfinder is not 3.x but an entirely different game. You are both correct and wrong. It is a different game because it is not called D&D, but it is just as close to 3.5 as 3.5 was to 3.0. I have no problem using any of my 3.5 or even my 3.0 books with Pathfinder. So yeah, Pathfinder is a continuation of 3.5 and only a different system in name alone. So with the exception of the name, Pathfinder is closer to being the D&D we've all been playing over the past decade than 4e. Just in the same way that many of the retro-clones are closer to being OD&D or 1e/2e than any of the editions that have been published in the past decade. Basically they are all D&D, in some fashion, with different labels. Kind of like D&D and AD&D.
Also for everyone that likes to talk trash about other editions, and I'm talking to OSR, 3.x and 4e players alike, please don't think that stating things like "it sucks" or insulting staff for company "x" are valid arguments. First of all unless you personally have had negative interactions with said staff, don't trash talk them. Most of these guys were/are gamers just like us and are some really nice people. Secondly, I have seen no one on any blog or message board that has given actual, hard evidence as to why a particular edition is better. Every single post, mine included, are based solely on personal preference and opinion. Neither of which is more right than anyone else's because opinions, no matter how strong, are in no way, shape or form, facts. If you can't back it up with hard indisputable facts, then just assume you are wrong. Unless you clearly state that it is your opinion, then you are neither wrong nor right. You just have an opinion, and just like assholes, we all have one.
I actually encourage the younger/newer gamers that I meet to stay far away from a many of the blogs and message boards related to our hobby. If I were looking at a lot of these posts from the perspective of a newbie or even a person who is just returning to the hobby, I'd want to stay far away from other gamers.
It is really sad that people who claim to love an industry so much spend so much time belittling not only another person's favorite game, but the people that like said game. What's even more sad is that a fairly large percentage of these gamers are adults and have been with the hobby for 10+ years. I think it would be safe to say that more than likely these same people are at the very least in their 20's, yet still resorting to childlike, playground behavior.
The plain and simple fact of the matter is that what game you like, what game I like, and what game some guy in Zimbabwe likes means jack shit. The only time people need to like the same game is if they are in the same gaming group. What you like has absolutely no impact on what I like and vice versa. So why the need to "prove" your game is better? I just don't get it.
I started playing RPG's well over 20 years ago with a hodge podge of D&D books from the 70's, AD&D books from the 80's, and a few miscellaneous books that came from various box sets. All of which my mom bought me at a yard sale. My friends and I loved the D&D cartoon so convincing them to play the game was not difficult.
None of us knew a single person that had ever played D&D and because our books were from different editions, we didn't have the best understanding of how the game was supposed to be played. Hell we didn't even have any of those funny dice the books said we needed and our Monster Manual was a little booklet that contained about 10 monsters.
So we house-ruled the shit out of it, created our own monsters and emptied every game of Yahtzee in our homes of their d6's. Our first characters sheets were on blank pieces of notebooks paper as were our dungeon maps. Was our game being played "correctly", were a bunch of kids with only the vaguest understanding of the game able to create balanced monsters and proper house-rules, not by a long shot. Yet, despite our handicaps, those games are some of my fondest gaming memories.
I moved a few months later and didn't find anyone to play D&D with until I was a freshman in high school. By this time I'd gotten some of those funny dice, graph paper, some actual characters sheets and because I still longed to play I bought more books(I got a real monster manual) when I got the money, and had a better understanding of the game.
Naturally my high school gaming group was more experienced, so our games became a little more detailed and "proper" than my original group. The DM we played with was big on playing by the rules and we were all OK with that, for a while.
When he was unavailable we'd all take turns running games and when it was my turn, the games tended to be more like the ones in my original group. I only used the rules as a guideline and always tried to make sure the game was fun above all else. I never tried to get a TPK, though it did happen. I was a little too generous with the treasure, but I also put the group up against some opponents that were way out of their league. I required the players to think and react rather than relying on what a rule said. No one ever whined that my games were broken or unbalanced. No one ever bitched and moaned that I had done exactly the opposite of what a rule said to do. None of that mattered because we were there to have fun and as long as that was accomplished then the game was a success.
Since we all went to school together there were times we just wrote down a few stats on some notebook paper, from memory if possible otherwise we just made them up, and I'd run games for the group right there in the back of class. We didn't take our gaming gear to school so we had no dice, I made up the stats for monsters and yet we still had fun. It was with this group, during those at school games, that I started expanding my RPG experience to include sci-fi, supers and other genres besides fantasy. We were making the stuff up so it didn't matter whether we were fighting dragons, zombies or Darth Vader.
The most important part of all of this is the "we". That's what matters, everyone in the group is having a good time and participating. Eventually, I became a full time DM for a different group and have pretty much run every single game I've played in since. I've always let my players have a say in what kind of games I ran and what was fair. While I may come up with the scenarios and make the rulings on things, the game isn't just about me.
When I started playing D&D, I had no understanding of the rules and we made the best of the situation. As I got more books and a better understanding of the game I began to incorporate more of what the rulebooks said. After all the creators of those games had often thought of rules for things that I had never encountered, and they were often pretty good rules. Still those older editions were pretty light on rules, when compared with newer games.
As the years progressed players wanted rules to cover more things that popped up in game or options that officially allowed them to do something. So the game creators obliged and thus we got 2e AD&D, which was a "tighter" game than 1e or basic. Then came 3e and the d20 system.
Of all the D&D editions I feel that 3e was quite simply the most versatile, but with that versatility came an abundance of rules. This same rules/option increase can be seen in just about every single system that has survived from those earlier days. It doesn't matter if you play Palladium, Hero, or D&D, the core books have gotten thicker or there are more of them, but that's not necessarily bad.
All these extra rules and options have done is put down on paper the stuff we just made up back when I first started playing. They brought consistency to our games. Back then if someone new came into our group we had to explain all the house-rules we had made up to give us the options we wanted. Even though we all played D&D, the way my grouped interpreted the looser rules may be very different than how your group interpreted them.
With the newer editions it became easier to walk in and play with other gaming groups and know what was going on with only a quick run down of the house-rules. Which once the the rulebooks began leaning towards making what you can do "official", those lists of house-rules seem to be much, much shorter than they were 20+ years ago, if they even exist at all.
Did all of these rules and options "break" our beloved game? No, because in the front of nearly every fucking RPG book I own it clearly states that if you don't like a rule or an option in the book, then throw the damn thing out. The only important part is having fun. The RPG industry didn't burden us with a bunch of rules that tied our hands and kept us from doing things we wanted to do, we did that to ourselves.
This brings me to the point of this little diatribe of mine. The edition wars or even system wars are juvenile and stupid. There is not a single thing you can do with your edition or system that I can't do with mine and vice verse. Unless of course one of us lacks the imagination and ability to think freely or feels like we must slavishly adhere to the rules. I mean come on, they are just game books and it isn't as if they are divinely handed down to us.
If I want "x" ability/spell/skill to do something in my game and my group feels it is OK, then that is how it will be. If I want to run a skills challenge, which I have been doing for years, I don't have to do it the way it says in some rule book. Although I can do it just as it is written, I am just as likely to do it in a way that contradicts the rules. Primarily to keep the story moving but also because I think it will benefit the game.
Now to be clear I don't throw out all the parts of a system and just do whatever comes to mind. I actually like the fact that the books come with options and solutions to things I used to have to make up on the fly. So yes I do like my rules, but I am not their slave.
If I want to play an "old school" game, I can break out my Rules Cyclopedia, AD&D 2e books, Villains & Vigilantes, any Palldium book, or a retro-clone (Dark Dungeons, Basic Fantasy RPG, GORE & OSRIC are my personal favorites). Of course I can play the exact same kind of "old school" game with D&D 3e, Pathfinder, D&D 4e, Hollow Earth Expedition, Cortex, L5R, Call of Cthulhu, Mutants & Masterminds, Savage Worlds or pretty damn near any RPG on the market. The reverse is true if I want to play a "new school" game. All the rules do is give you the basics, and some guidelines that you can follow or ignore. It's not the rules or the system that decides how a game is played, it's you.
I own hundreds of RPG books and I cherish every one of them. There are some I prefer over others for one reason or another, but I have gotten something good out of every single book I own. I have books for systems that I probably will never run and I have books that are falling apart because I use them so much, but none of them are useless or worthless.
Now is about the time that some of you, the one or two that actually read what I write, may be calling shenanigans. After all haven't I said that the Palladium system needs to be reworked and that I quit playing 4e because my group and I don't really like it? Yes I have and I do stand by every word.
At it's core the Palladium system isn't bad. The basics are pretty much just like every other RPG, you have a target number, roll dice to hit. The problem with Palladium is that their information (options, rules, etc) are spread out over so many books and even within the core Rifts book are poorly organized. The system (predominately Rifts) has become an unwieldy mess of books and rules. As common as it is for some people to call out WotC for being money grabbing jerks, Palladium is just as guilty.
Can you run/play Rifts with just the core Rifts book? Sure, but you will only have a handful of villains, unless the GM roles up some GMPC villains using the O.C.C's in the book, and there is only one R.C.C. Want to play something other than a human or dragon hatchling, too bad you have to buy another book. Want to know more about magic, there are more books for that. Want to fight vampires, aliens or some other monsters, too bad you need more books. It almost seems as if each Palladium books is equal parts game resource and advertisement for other Palladium books.
Don't get me wrong, and I've said this before, I love Palladium's stuff. I also wish my gaming group were willing to play the system. They just don't like it and don't want to buy the books. When people tell you that house-ruling is pretty much required to make the game "playable" (I have been told this more than once by people devoted to Palladium. To be quite honest even Mr. Siembieda, who is a really nice guy, once told me at Gen Con years ago that alot of players throw out a majority of the system and run it on house-rules), then the system has gotten too bloated for its own good and could use some fine tuning. What's the sense in even having rulebooks if you end up throwing most of the stuff out? This is an instance where a new edition is not a bad idea. Still I just can't help being drawn to this system. The 50+ Palladium books I own can attest to that.
As for 4e I personally don't have a major problem with the system, it does exactly what it is designed to do. My group and I just don't want to play it.
I freely admit to being a fan of 3.x and Pathfinder is our system of choice. I own 4e books, I've ran 4e games but my group clearly told me they wanted to play "D&D" (which to them is Pathfinder or any older D&D edition). 4e just wasn't their cup of tea.
As a GM/DM, 4e made prep time easier and I won't deny that, but the group didn't like the character options. They really didn't like the fact that the classes were designed to fill a specific role and I can't disagree with them on that. I could have easily thrown out what we didn't like about the game, but why bother when we would have just changed it into Pathfinder. So we stuck with 3.x and Pathfinder is our default fantasy game.
Of course I think Pathfinder made GM prep much easier when compared to 3e or 3.5. Of course that is just my opinion. My players like the changes to classes and so we are happy with the system. We have no reason to change.
Now where I have a major issue is with WotC. In the lead up to 4e they stated more than once that everyone talking about 4e was wrong. There was no 4e and 3.x was going to be around for a while. I also remember more than a few comments by WotC staff members at Gen Con and on message boards that leaned heavily towards insulting when it they spoke about the people saying that 4e was being developed. (OK on the boards they claimed to be WotC staff, and I took them on their word, but can not prove the validity of this.) Then the very next year at Gen Con, they not only announced 4e, but said that they had been working on it for something like 2 years.
They made this fine presentation about all this really cool stuff that was going to be available when the game was released and then didn't come through. I actually got excited about some of the features they were supposed to have available, but the closer it came to 4e's release, they still didn't even have test versions up.
So my beef with 4e is and has always been WotC's attitude towards their fans. At the time they seemed to be telling us that because they own D&D all of us mindless, geeky sheep would believe and buy whatever they shoveled our way. I just didn't take too kindly to that attitude. Now I know there are some really great people working at WotC, a few of which hinted at displeasure with the company's POV during some brief conversations and this is not their individual views, but it did and still does seem to be the WotC/Hasbro view. I gave the game a chance and still may even buy the Red Box, but I won't pretend that their actions didn't sour my view of WotC and the current D&D brand a great deal.
Now the thing I find the most upsetting is the things I continue to see around the net. I freely admit that fans of all editions have been openly acting like royal asses, but I find that more often than not a majority of this poor behavior is coming from 4e fans.
I've seen insults towards 3.x, OSR and player's of completely different systems that range from them being mindless sheep (I'll address this in minute) to them being simple or close minded. WTF?!? How can having a preference for a certain system or edition mean you are dumb or close minded? I don't think less of 4e players because of their choice. Hell if you were running a 4e game and asked me to play I'd probably do so gladly, unless I was running a game that same night. As fun as it can be to GM a game it is nice to sit on the other side of the screen every once in a while.
Now as for the mindless sheep comments, which seem to be the most popular, how is continuing to buy products that support the game you are already playing more like being mindless sheep that replacing all those books you bought just because there is a shiny, new, but completely incompatible edition available? It seems to me that the sheep like behavior is going with the rest of the flock to the shiny new pasture, when the old pasture was just fine.
There have also been a lot of insults thrown towards Paizo because they decided to stick with the edition that basically created the company. Mostly that they are selfish, money hungry hacks. Again I have to give a big WTF?!?
Just like every other company, including WotC/Hasbro, they are there to make money. There is nothing wrong with that and they likely wouldn't last long if they didn't at least try to make a profit. The important thing is how they view and treat their fans/customers. Besides there was a demand for a product that they were already knowledgeable about, so why shouldn't they keep going with it?
I've had nothing but good experiences dealing with Paizo staff and customer service and have yet to hear anyone that has honestly dealt with them say different. While I have never personally dealt with WotC in that way, I have heard just the opposite about them.
Paizo includes all of their potential customers in their playtests, and everyone from freelancers up to the top bosses are on the message boards interacting with fans, asking and answering questions. I've never seen that on the WotC boards. The only time I've had interaction with, supposed, WotC employees online has been on other boards. Like I said before most of them that I've spoken with, online or in person, are great people who love gaming as much as the rest of us. (I've only met one WotC employee, whom I think was a boss, that was a dick in person. Right after that, and maybe because of it I don't know for sure, a couple of other WotC creators whose name I won't mention, spent a good 10 minutes just chatting with me at Gen Con) The company is where my problem starts and stops.
Now before it seems like I'm picking on the 4e gang, let me set this straight. I'm not saying, in any way that 4e players as a whole are being asses online. That would not only be a generalization, but a very poor one at that. I know a few 4e players, online only, I don't know anyone personally that still plays 4e, and they seem like stand up guys and gals. So for the "good guys" in the 4e gang, don't be offended. Of course I do realize that I'm probably going to get ripped to shreds in the comments, but I know it is just that select group of loudmouths and they do not represent the 4e group as a whole.
It has just been my personal experience that the most hostile gamers on message-boards seem to be the ones claiming to be 4e players. I say "claiming to be" because I don't know them personally and they could just be ass hats that are trying to stir up trouble. It is just that a majority of these jerks represent themselves as 4e players and given that it would be kind of silly for a non-gamer to spend time on RPG boards just to stir up an edition war, I accept that they are in fact 4e players.
Now to turn my accusing little fingers away from the 4e crowd I have to say that I'm disappointed in a lot of the OSR players as well. Most of the old school gang seem to be 30+ years old and yet too many of them have been participating in the edition bashing as well. I expect better from people in my age group (Again this is only directed towards the jerks who continue to stir up trouble and insult fans of newer editions). Going old school is fine, I'm running a Rules Cyclopedia game next weekend, but old school does not equal better. It is just your preferred style of play. Enough with the elitist attitude. There is nothing wrong with people playing AD&D 1e/2e, 3.x/Pathfinder, 4e or any other d20 game on the market. I would encourage anyone, especially someone new to the hobby, to play which ever edition/system they want, just as long as they are playing and keeping the hobby alive.
Now as for the 3.x/Pathfinder group. I've seen more than a couple of you stirring up trouble on the boards as well. Please stop acting like dip shits. Just because some of us stuck with a version of the rules we prefer does not make us anymore superior to other players than they are to us. 3.x/Pathfinder may be my system of choice, but it is not the end all, be all of gaming. Every system/edition has its flaws, if you claim something different then you aren't reading the same books I am.
In all sincerity, I'm really not trying to be mean or attempting to offend anyone. I'm just really upset with how I see some of my fellow gamers acting towards one another. I just think it would better serve the community and industry if we all got along better and supported each other. Even if our opinions differ. Otherwise we may be responsible for tearing apart the very hobby we all claim to love so much.
One last thing. For all of you that claim Pathfinder is not 3.x but an entirely different game. You are both correct and wrong. It is a different game because it is not called D&D, but it is just as close to 3.5 as 3.5 was to 3.0. I have no problem using any of my 3.5 or even my 3.0 books with Pathfinder. So yeah, Pathfinder is a continuation of 3.5 and only a different system in name alone. So with the exception of the name, Pathfinder is closer to being the D&D we've all been playing over the past decade than 4e. Just in the same way that many of the retro-clones are closer to being OD&D or 1e/2e than any of the editions that have been published in the past decade. Basically they are all D&D, in some fashion, with different labels. Kind of like D&D and AD&D.
Also for everyone that likes to talk trash about other editions, and I'm talking to OSR, 3.x and 4e players alike, please don't think that stating things like "it sucks" or insulting staff for company "x" are valid arguments. First of all unless you personally have had negative interactions with said staff, don't trash talk them. Most of these guys were/are gamers just like us and are some really nice people. Secondly, I have seen no one on any blog or message board that has given actual, hard evidence as to why a particular edition is better. Every single post, mine included, are based solely on personal preference and opinion. Neither of which is more right than anyone else's because opinions, no matter how strong, are in no way, shape or form, facts. If you can't back it up with hard indisputable facts, then just assume you are wrong. Unless you clearly state that it is your opinion, then you are neither wrong nor right. You just have an opinion, and just like assholes, we all have one.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Some Really Cool Maps
I am planning on running an Eberron adventure using Pathfinder, naturally, this weekend and needed a couple of maps. So I Googled up some Eberron maps.
As I was going through the search result thumbnails I noticed a map that didn't look quite right. I could plainly see the Eberron continents on it, but there were a few more than I remembered. So I clicked the link and found my new favorite map.
Some one on the WotC boards had taken the time to place all of the D&D campaign settings as well as Golarion on the same world. Personally I think that is awesome, because I tend to let PC's switch from one setting to the next as if they were on the same world. Now they can be.
Anyway go check out the map here. It is the first post and he has put up several versions so that you can see the world, which according to his posts is scaled to about Earth size, from different angles. All you have to do is "open image in new tab" and then "save image"
Here is a sample of one of the versions of the map.
As I was going through the search result thumbnails I noticed a map that didn't look quite right. I could plainly see the Eberron continents on it, but there were a few more than I remembered. So I clicked the link and found my new favorite map.
Some one on the WotC boards had taken the time to place all of the D&D campaign settings as well as Golarion on the same world. Personally I think that is awesome, because I tend to let PC's switch from one setting to the next as if they were on the same world. Now they can be.
Anyway go check out the map here. It is the first post and he has put up several versions so that you can see the world, which according to his posts is scaled to about Earth size, from different angles. All you have to do is "open image in new tab" and then "save image"
Here is a sample of one of the versions of the map.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Pathfinder listed in shopping list of Game Informer
I read Game Informer as it is one of the best video game magazine out there. This last issue they made a christmas wish list. In that list under fantasy section of the wish list the number 1 item listed was the Pathfidner Roleplaying Game. The following is the write up that they put with the caption.
"This huge role-playing book includes all the info you need to get started and have a blast with your friends. A smarter skill system, improved classes, and streamlines combat systems highlight the list of gameplay to explore. Gorgeous art and smart, revised design ideas fill the pages, but everything is compatible with the old D&D 3.5 edition rules through only minor alterations. If you're ready for something new, don't miss out on 4th edition D&D. but if dramatic changes to your role-playing hobby terrify you. Pathfinder should be right up your alley."
I know that there is a pretty good following to Pathfinder and this should help the cause. I also wanted to mention Savage Worlds just released the fantasy companion to the Savage Worlds rule set. I am looking forward to checking that out in the coming weeks.
"This huge role-playing book includes all the info you need to get started and have a blast with your friends. A smarter skill system, improved classes, and streamlines combat systems highlight the list of gameplay to explore. Gorgeous art and smart, revised design ideas fill the pages, but everything is compatible with the old D&D 3.5 edition rules through only minor alterations. If you're ready for something new, don't miss out on 4th edition D&D. but if dramatic changes to your role-playing hobby terrify you. Pathfinder should be right up your alley."
I know that there is a pretty good following to Pathfinder and this should help the cause. I also wanted to mention Savage Worlds just released the fantasy companion to the Savage Worlds rule set. I am looking forward to checking that out in the coming weeks.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Goblings
Just for the hell of it, here is a race I'm testing for my Pathfinder Game.
Goblings
Goblings are the unfortunate offspring of a Goblin and a Halfling, more often than not the result of a non-consensual union. Goblings generally become people pleasers that feel the need to continually prove their worth in an attempt to gain the acceptance and trust of those around them. Goblings don't like to be seen as weak and often show an incredible amount of determination, refusing to accept failure. Because of their seemingly unfaltering determination Goblings tend to earn the respect of those close to them.
As a result of their Goblin heritage Goblings tend to be less even-tempered and more prone to violence than their Halfling kin.
Physical Description: Both genders of Goblings stand between 3-4 feet tall. Their heads are slightly larger than those of a Halfling with a backward sloping forehead, which often seems somewhat disproportional to their slender bodies. Goblings have a broad nose, and wide mouth, with small fangs. Their ears, which are proportional to their heads, are pointed and somewhat larger than those of a Halfling. A Gobling’s arms are longer than normal, almost hanging to their knees, and slightly shorter than a Goblin’s but longer than a Halfling’s. Their feet are undeniably those of a Halfling, broad and covered with brown or black hair. Their Goblin heritage gives their skin a slight tint that can be yellowish, light brown or green. Usually their skin color can be easily hidden beneath a cloak and is barely noticable from a distance.
A Gobling’s hair is either brown or black and heir eyes are brown, or yellow in color.
Society: Goblings have no culture of their own and tend to adhere to the traditions of the culture in which they were raised. They can generally pass themselves off Halflings or are assumed to be Gnomes by other races unless they are put under close scrutiny. Goblings raised by Halflings tend to be fairly well tolerated and generally treated with kindness by their easygoing kin. Usually this kindness is the result of pity as Goblings are seen as creatures that suffer from an illness or disability. Goblings raised by Halflings are allowed to participate in many parts of their society, but are generally treated as simple minded or like children and not taken very seriously. This generally motivates a Gobling to continually try and prove their worth, to others and to themselves. Due to their more violent nature Goblings can gain some amount of respect in Halfling society as warriors, but are never given any positions of great authority.
Goblings are generally not raised in Goblin society, as Goblins do not think highly of their Gobling offspring and tend to kill them them while they are still infants. Those that do survive become slaves while a select few may become vicious warriors in order to survive. Their ferocity gains them some minor amount of respect, but they continually have to watch those around them for signs of treachery, as other Goblins will continually plot their demise. Those raised in Goblin societies tend to adhere to the traditions of their society and are usually no different in nature than the rest of their tribe.
Relations: Goblings are usually more accepted by other races than Half-orcs due to their less threatening stature, and are often under estimated by the larger races. Halfling raised Goblings have a more positive view of the other races and life in general, than their Goblin raised brethren. Goblings understand that they are different and are prone to feel isolated and out of place, even among friends. Goblings make strong attachments and are fiercely loyal to those they feel truly accept them. This attachment often results in a Gobling that is ready and willing to lay down their life, or to take some one else’s, to protect those they care about and consider friends.
Alignment and Religion: While Goblings can be of any alignment, most strive to be good, but not necessarily lawful. While trying to protect their friends and those close to them a Gobling will show little regard for any alignment or ideology, even if that means committing an evil or unlawful act. Goblings tend to honor the same gods as those who raised them, but have been known to adopt the beliefs of their close friends or others that they respect.
Adventurers: Many Goblings suffer from the same wanderlust as their Halfling kin, while others just want to find a place in the world where they can belong. This often leads them to adventure whether they are looking for it or not.
Male Names: Prataal, Trin, Garen, Kelan, Bringam, Shilos
Female Names: Aria, Rya, Hila, Meria, Nika, Zora
Gobling Racial Traits
+2 Dexterity, +2Charisma, -2 Intelligence: Much like a Halfing, Goblings are nimble and strong willed, but suffer from the simple minded nature of their Goblin heritage.
Small: Goblings are Small creatures and gain a +1 sice bonus to their AC, a +1 size bonus on attack rolls, a –1 penalty on their Combat Maneuver Bonus and Combat Maneuver Defense and a +4 size bonus on Stealth checks.
Slow Speed: Goblings have a base speed of 20 feet
Darkvision: Goblings can see in the dark up to 60 ft.
Determination: Goblings get a +1 racial bonus on all Will and Fortitude saving throws.
People Pleaser: Goblings receive a +2 racial bonus on Diplomacy skill checks
Keen Senses: Goblings receive a +2 racial bonus on Perceptions skill checks
Weapon Familiarity: A Gobling can treat any weapon with either the word “Halfling” or the word “Goblin”, but not both, in the name as a martial weapon.
Languages: Goblins can speak Common and Halfling.(Those raised in Goblin communities can choose to know Common and Goblin instead). Goblings with a high intelligence score can choose from the following, Dwarven, Elven, Gnome, and Goblin
Goblings
Goblings are the unfortunate offspring of a Goblin and a Halfling, more often than not the result of a non-consensual union. Goblings generally become people pleasers that feel the need to continually prove their worth in an attempt to gain the acceptance and trust of those around them. Goblings don't like to be seen as weak and often show an incredible amount of determination, refusing to accept failure. Because of their seemingly unfaltering determination Goblings tend to earn the respect of those close to them.
As a result of their Goblin heritage Goblings tend to be less even-tempered and more prone to violence than their Halfling kin.
Physical Description: Both genders of Goblings stand between 3-4 feet tall. Their heads are slightly larger than those of a Halfling with a backward sloping forehead, which often seems somewhat disproportional to their slender bodies. Goblings have a broad nose, and wide mouth, with small fangs. Their ears, which are proportional to their heads, are pointed and somewhat larger than those of a Halfling. A Gobling’s arms are longer than normal, almost hanging to their knees, and slightly shorter than a Goblin’s but longer than a Halfling’s. Their feet are undeniably those of a Halfling, broad and covered with brown or black hair. Their Goblin heritage gives their skin a slight tint that can be yellowish, light brown or green. Usually their skin color can be easily hidden beneath a cloak and is barely noticable from a distance.
A Gobling’s hair is either brown or black and heir eyes are brown, or yellow in color.
Society: Goblings have no culture of their own and tend to adhere to the traditions of the culture in which they were raised. They can generally pass themselves off Halflings or are assumed to be Gnomes by other races unless they are put under close scrutiny. Goblings raised by Halflings tend to be fairly well tolerated and generally treated with kindness by their easygoing kin. Usually this kindness is the result of pity as Goblings are seen as creatures that suffer from an illness or disability. Goblings raised by Halflings are allowed to participate in many parts of their society, but are generally treated as simple minded or like children and not taken very seriously. This generally motivates a Gobling to continually try and prove their worth, to others and to themselves. Due to their more violent nature Goblings can gain some amount of respect in Halfling society as warriors, but are never given any positions of great authority.
Goblings are generally not raised in Goblin society, as Goblins do not think highly of their Gobling offspring and tend to kill them them while they are still infants. Those that do survive become slaves while a select few may become vicious warriors in order to survive. Their ferocity gains them some minor amount of respect, but they continually have to watch those around them for signs of treachery, as other Goblins will continually plot their demise. Those raised in Goblin societies tend to adhere to the traditions of their society and are usually no different in nature than the rest of their tribe.
Relations: Goblings are usually more accepted by other races than Half-orcs due to their less threatening stature, and are often under estimated by the larger races. Halfling raised Goblings have a more positive view of the other races and life in general, than their Goblin raised brethren. Goblings understand that they are different and are prone to feel isolated and out of place, even among friends. Goblings make strong attachments and are fiercely loyal to those they feel truly accept them. This attachment often results in a Gobling that is ready and willing to lay down their life, or to take some one else’s, to protect those they care about and consider friends.
Alignment and Religion: While Goblings can be of any alignment, most strive to be good, but not necessarily lawful. While trying to protect their friends and those close to them a Gobling will show little regard for any alignment or ideology, even if that means committing an evil or unlawful act. Goblings tend to honor the same gods as those who raised them, but have been known to adopt the beliefs of their close friends or others that they respect.
Adventurers: Many Goblings suffer from the same wanderlust as their Halfling kin, while others just want to find a place in the world where they can belong. This often leads them to adventure whether they are looking for it or not.
Male Names: Prataal, Trin, Garen, Kelan, Bringam, Shilos
Female Names: Aria, Rya, Hila, Meria, Nika, Zora
Gobling Racial Traits
+2 Dexterity, +2Charisma, -2 Intelligence: Much like a Halfing, Goblings are nimble and strong willed, but suffer from the simple minded nature of their Goblin heritage.
Small: Goblings are Small creatures and gain a +1 sice bonus to their AC, a +1 size bonus on attack rolls, a –1 penalty on their Combat Maneuver Bonus and Combat Maneuver Defense and a +4 size bonus on Stealth checks.
Slow Speed: Goblings have a base speed of 20 feet
Darkvision: Goblings can see in the dark up to 60 ft.
Determination: Goblings get a +1 racial bonus on all Will and Fortitude saving throws.
People Pleaser: Goblings receive a +2 racial bonus on Diplomacy skill checks
Keen Senses: Goblings receive a +2 racial bonus on Perceptions skill checks
Weapon Familiarity: A Gobling can treat any weapon with either the word “Halfling” or the word “Goblin”, but not both, in the name as a martial weapon.
Languages: Goblins can speak Common and Halfling.(Those raised in Goblin communities can choose to know Common and Goblin instead). Goblings with a high intelligence score can choose from the following, Dwarven, Elven, Gnome, and Goblin
Thursday, July 16, 2009
A few intersting tidbits.
In keeping with my current Pathfinder obsession I thought I would bring another Pathfinder site you everyone's attention. The Pathfinder Database is a new site that is supposed to eventually have useful information for those, like myself, who will be playing PRPG. The site " aims to provide a home for Pathfinder RPG fan-created content and will go live on August 13th 2009"
If you have an account, it's free, you can add your own races, creatures, NPCs and adventures for others to use. Apparently pretty much everything you want to publish is fair game, except house rules. It isn't active yet, but it couldn't hurt to go ahead and get you account set up now.
Pathfinder Database website.
On a side note has anyone been keeping up with the Blackest Night storyline running through Green Lantern comics? If not you should, it looks to be frakkin awesome! The first issues of the mini come out... this week I think.
If you have an account, it's free, you can add your own races, creatures, NPCs and adventures for others to use. Apparently pretty much everything you want to publish is fair game, except house rules. It isn't active yet, but it couldn't hurt to go ahead and get you account set up now.
Pathfinder Database website.
On a side note has anyone been keeping up with the Blackest Night storyline running through Green Lantern comics? If not you should, it looks to be frakkin awesome! The first issues of the mini come out... this week I think.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Paizo's 7-7-7 Sale
In response to a post on the message boards, Paizo is celebrating their 7th anniversary by giving fans a deal on Paizo products.
Starting 7/1 and lasting until 7/7 Paizo has 7 products that are going to be priced at $7. 7 days, 7 products for $7, that seems like a pretty good deal to me.
The products listed at this price are The Seven Swords of Sin module, Pathfinder #7- Curse of the Crimson Throne Chapter 1, a Harrow Deck, Rise of the Runelords map Folio, Map Pack: Trounament and Flip-Mat: Mountain Pass as well as The Anubis Murders, a novel by Gary Gygax.
So check out the deals and pick up some deals while they last.
Link to the 7-7-7 Paizo page.
Starting 7/1 and lasting until 7/7 Paizo has 7 products that are going to be priced at $7. 7 days, 7 products for $7, that seems like a pretty good deal to me.
The products listed at this price are The Seven Swords of Sin module, Pathfinder #7- Curse of the Crimson Throne Chapter 1, a Harrow Deck, Rise of the Runelords map Folio, Map Pack: Trounament and Flip-Mat: Mountain Pass as well as The Anubis Murders, a novel by Gary Gygax.
So check out the deals and pick up some deals while they last.
Link to the 7-7-7 Paizo page.
Keeping 3.x alive
I, like many other fans of 3rd edition D&D (3e - Pathfinder), have been eagerly awaiting the release of the Pathfinder RPG core book, but I can't help wondering exactly why we are so looking forward to this rules revision.
Granted many of the "broken" mechanics in 3.x are to be resolved in the PfRPG and the rules set as a whole is expected, given what we've seen in the beta, to be better. However, the game is only a tweaked version of 3.x and Paizo has stated that it is intended to keep the books we already have useful. Which is what 3.x fans want.
Most of us have house ruled the broken parts of 3.x to the point it is "better" than the original, at least in terms of how we play individually with our groups. We all have tons of books to reference and years of familiarity with the system and our house rules. The thing that kind of puzzles me, and I'm as guilty of it as anyone else, is if we all want to keep playing 3.x why do we need a new revision and more books? Why don't we stick with the current version and the house rules we've come up with? Also if Paizo is making Pathfinder compatible with the books we already own, what is our motivation to buy anything other than their Core Book, the Beastiary and maybe the GM guide?
Here are some of my "theories" regarding these questions:
1. We love Paizo and want to support them. They made great material for 3.x and we are confident that if D&D can be fixed, they can do it much better than WotC. I think it comes down to a "stick it to the man/evil corporation that royally pissed us off" type of mentality. We want Paizo to succeed and WotC to fail out of some motivation to prove that we were "right" and WotC was wrong. Then when Paizo steps in to buy the D&D brand all will be better again... at least that is how some seem to imagine it happening. I'm not saying I'm one of them but I can't deny that the thought has crossed my mind. Of course it will never happen.
2. We want an official "fixed" version of the game. Our house rules may be great, but we want something that comes from professional game designers. This actually seems like the most likely reason and my primary motivation for buying Pathfinder. I like their version better than my house ruled version.
3. We've come to enjoy and think of 3.x as the true/best version of D&D and dismiss 4e. I know that 4e is the official version of D&D, but when I play the game, which I happen to like, it doesn't feel like D&D to me. It is a really good game on its own, but it just doesn't feel right to me personally. I have no better explanation than that. It is a matter of personal preference.
4. WotC has just pissed us(me)off too many times. Which could have some influence on how 4e is perceived by fans. A lot of people can forgive and forget, but I and many other still hold a grudge for the attitude that WotC has had as well as some of their actions over the past few years. While they are both companies whose goal is to sell product and turn a profit, Paizo seems much more customer oriented and fan friendly. Paizo staff actually post and interact with fans on the message boards on a regular basis. They seem to actually listen to what fans have to say about their products. They released the core rules beta, a nearly 500 page book, for everyone to download for free! How could you not like them?
5. Paizo seems to have a better track record of getting product out when they say and so far hasn't promoted anything that they can't deliver.
6. All during the 3.x era Paizo put out some damn good D&D content. Most of it was better (IMO) than what the WotC team put out. Of course this can be said of several other companies as well,but Paizo is the one that decided to keep 3.x alive. We/I trust them to continue that tradition.
7. We like buying new books. As loyal fans of 3.x we want to keep using our current books and system, but we want new books to add to our library with updated info. Paizo is making this happen.
On a bit of a side note, if we want the 3rd edition rules to stay strong, that means buying more new books. Paizo wouldn't release this product unless they expected fans to buy the products that support it. That means we will be expected to buy the settings, sourcebooks and subscriptions to Paizo's Pathfinder line of products.
Granted Paizo gives us good reason to buy those supporting products, but when you think about it, many of the complaints we had with 4e, such as buying new books are made moot. We will be doing exactly what we complained about in the first place. The only difference being it is the same system, just revised... even though it is technically a completely different game.
PfRPG is different enough that it can stand on its own with out every 3.x book that has been released thus far, but it is made to be compatible with what we already have. So it is possible that those of us cheering that our library of books will not be made obsolete, will only end up with an even larger library much of which is likely to be "revised" versions of books we already own. Which, unless I missed something, still ends up making the books we own "obsolete". If we don't buy new products 3.x will die off and become another old system that is only supported by fans and maybe some smaller publishers. This has kind of created a vicious cycle.
If we don't buy the new books, the system is likely to fail. Yet the fact it is compatible with the books we already own, thus not requiring the purchase of new books, is the reason so many of us like Pathfinder. If we don't buy the new stuff, 3.x dies (in the sense that no new products are being released) and if we do we just end up replacing what we already own anyway.... ad nauseum.
I still plan on buying and supporting Pathfinder, but I did kind of think all of this was odd when looked at from a different perspective. I don't begrudge and won't belittle anyone who chooses 4e as their default fantasy setting anymore than I would someone for choosing Spirit of the Century over Hollow Earth Expedition for pulp games, but I can kind of see the hypocrisy in it all.
It is all a matter of personal choice and nothing more.
*** Update: I have seen on the Paizo message boards that, according to Eric Mona, Paizo plans to release 2-3 sourcebooks for Pathfinder each year. Not 6-10, but 2-3. Of course there will still be their modules and adventure paths for those that want to buy/subscribe to them, but fewer actual sorcebooks will be released in an attemtp to control rules bloating.***
By the way I don't know if this is current or if I missed this at some earlier date or just forgot about it but I found a page with a pdf deal from Paizo. If you enter "PDFLove" at check out when purchasing a pdf @ Paizo's store you get 35% off your purchase. If it is old and I forgot about it, the deal may have expired, if not then I may be buying some new pdfs.
35% off deal.
Here is what I can only assume is an April Fools joke from Paizo about the d21 system. Some how I missed it until tonight.
Pathfinder RPG
Granted many of the "broken" mechanics in 3.x are to be resolved in the PfRPG and the rules set as a whole is expected, given what we've seen in the beta, to be better. However, the game is only a tweaked version of 3.x and Paizo has stated that it is intended to keep the books we already have useful. Which is what 3.x fans want.
Most of us have house ruled the broken parts of 3.x to the point it is "better" than the original, at least in terms of how we play individually with our groups. We all have tons of books to reference and years of familiarity with the system and our house rules. The thing that kind of puzzles me, and I'm as guilty of it as anyone else, is if we all want to keep playing 3.x why do we need a new revision and more books? Why don't we stick with the current version and the house rules we've come up with? Also if Paizo is making Pathfinder compatible with the books we already own, what is our motivation to buy anything other than their Core Book, the Beastiary and maybe the GM guide?
Here are some of my "theories" regarding these questions:
1. We love Paizo and want to support them. They made great material for 3.x and we are confident that if D&D can be fixed, they can do it much better than WotC. I think it comes down to a "stick it to the man/evil corporation that royally pissed us off" type of mentality. We want Paizo to succeed and WotC to fail out of some motivation to prove that we were "right" and WotC was wrong. Then when Paizo steps in to buy the D&D brand all will be better again... at least that is how some seem to imagine it happening. I'm not saying I'm one of them but I can't deny that the thought has crossed my mind. Of course it will never happen.
2. We want an official "fixed" version of the game. Our house rules may be great, but we want something that comes from professional game designers. This actually seems like the most likely reason and my primary motivation for buying Pathfinder. I like their version better than my house ruled version.
3. We've come to enjoy and think of 3.x as the true/best version of D&D and dismiss 4e. I know that 4e is the official version of D&D, but when I play the game, which I happen to like, it doesn't feel like D&D to me. It is a really good game on its own, but it just doesn't feel right to me personally. I have no better explanation than that. It is a matter of personal preference.
4. WotC has just pissed us(me)off too many times. Which could have some influence on how 4e is perceived by fans. A lot of people can forgive and forget, but I and many other still hold a grudge for the attitude that WotC has had as well as some of their actions over the past few years. While they are both companies whose goal is to sell product and turn a profit, Paizo seems much more customer oriented and fan friendly. Paizo staff actually post and interact with fans on the message boards on a regular basis. They seem to actually listen to what fans have to say about their products. They released the core rules beta, a nearly 500 page book, for everyone to download for free! How could you not like them?
5. Paizo seems to have a better track record of getting product out when they say and so far hasn't promoted anything that they can't deliver.
6. All during the 3.x era Paizo put out some damn good D&D content. Most of it was better (IMO) than what the WotC team put out. Of course this can be said of several other companies as well,but Paizo is the one that decided to keep 3.x alive. We/I trust them to continue that tradition.
7. We like buying new books. As loyal fans of 3.x we want to keep using our current books and system, but we want new books to add to our library with updated info. Paizo is making this happen.
On a bit of a side note, if we want the 3rd edition rules to stay strong, that means buying more new books. Paizo wouldn't release this product unless they expected fans to buy the products that support it. That means we will be expected to buy the settings, sourcebooks and subscriptions to Paizo's Pathfinder line of products.
Granted Paizo gives us good reason to buy those supporting products, but when you think about it, many of the complaints we had with 4e, such as buying new books are made moot. We will be doing exactly what we complained about in the first place. The only difference being it is the same system, just revised... even though it is technically a completely different game.
PfRPG is different enough that it can stand on its own with out every 3.x book that has been released thus far, but it is made to be compatible with what we already have. So it is possible that those of us cheering that our library of books will not be made obsolete, will only end up with an even larger library much of which is likely to be "revised" versions of books we already own. Which, unless I missed something, still ends up making the books we own "obsolete". If we don't buy new products 3.x will die off and become another old system that is only supported by fans and maybe some smaller publishers. This has kind of created a vicious cycle.
If we don't buy the new books, the system is likely to fail. Yet the fact it is compatible with the books we already own, thus not requiring the purchase of new books, is the reason so many of us like Pathfinder. If we don't buy the new stuff, 3.x dies (in the sense that no new products are being released) and if we do we just end up replacing what we already own anyway.... ad nauseum.
I still plan on buying and supporting Pathfinder, but I did kind of think all of this was odd when looked at from a different perspective. I don't begrudge and won't belittle anyone who chooses 4e as their default fantasy setting anymore than I would someone for choosing Spirit of the Century over Hollow Earth Expedition for pulp games, but I can kind of see the hypocrisy in it all.
It is all a matter of personal choice and nothing more.
*** Update: I have seen on the Paizo message boards that, according to Eric Mona, Paizo plans to release 2-3 sourcebooks for Pathfinder each year. Not 6-10, but 2-3. Of course there will still be their modules and adventure paths for those that want to buy/subscribe to them, but fewer actual sorcebooks will be released in an attemtp to control rules bloating.***
By the way I don't know if this is current or if I missed this at some earlier date or just forgot about it but I found a page with a pdf deal from Paizo. If you enter "PDFLove" at check out when purchasing a pdf @ Paizo's store you get 35% off your purchase. If it is old and I forgot about it, the deal may have expired, if not then I may be buying some new pdfs.
35% off deal.
Here is what I can only assume is an April Fools joke from Paizo about the d21 system. Some how I missed it until tonight.
Pathfinder RPG
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Update to 3e, 4e post...
jreyst over at Cavernia left a comment on my previous post to inform me that there is a Pathfinder SRD and a google group. While on the SRD site I also found a link to the Patfinder wikia which was pretty interesting. This got me to wondering how many Pathfinder sites had popped up recently and suprisingly there weren't that many. However, after a quick search I did find a couple that are worth mentioning, Pathfinder Portal and Pathfinder Open Game Content.
Now that my curiosity is piqued I will do a more thorough search and see what other Pathfinder related sites I can come up with for a future post.
*I am including my list of links at the end of my post because they are apparently causing issues with the RPGBN. So from now on you will likely find all of my links listed at the end of my posts.*
Now that my curiosity is piqued I will do a more thorough search and see what other Pathfinder related sites I can come up with for a future post.
*I am including my list of links at the end of my post because they are apparently causing issues with the RPGBN. So from now on you will likely find all of my links listed at the end of my posts.*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)