Legends and Lore: An Introduction

211 posts / 0 new
Last post
The hostility towards Paizo here is pretty cute & sad. It's....wait.....are you ready for some ham fisted ignorance......it's bologna.



I'll wager you'll find less and less ham in bologna these days, what with the economy and all that. Tongue out


As gamers, many of us (myself included) have been and/or are currently being mocked for the games that we play. Some of us can take this in stride while others prefer to pay it forward and mock those who don't play the particular games that they play. And the world keeps on spinning.

I don't play that really, really popular MMORPG, but I've been known to casually spend some on the servers of a few other games. You'll often see people spamming general chat about how "wow is the awesome and this game sux and why are you guys waisting yur time playing this stoopid game" In other words they took time out of their busy schedules to log onto a different game in order to garner support for their game even though they truly have no vested interest in doing so.

Regardless there is room in this world for many RPG systems and thoughtful, eloquently stated criticism can lead to some fairly entertaining and enlightening discussions. But knocking a game just because it isn't a game that you happen to play is "stoopid" and a "waist" of everyone's time and energy. Wink
I would like it if we could just get along, and I will look forward to how Mearls wants to influence the game through the information he acquires from his column and the players of the game.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Re: Regression.  Essentials and other post e material feels largely like a conceptual regression to me.  Wizards with a lot of abilities to choose from at any given time, fighters with only a few.  Necromancer as a wizard specialty (not even its own subclass!), simply because that's how its always been.  Paladins with alignment restrictions, etc.  Hexblade aside*, there doesn't seem to be any character to come out of essentials that I couldn't have played very similarly in earlier editions, and that includes what material we've seen previewed for Heroes of Shadow.  4e's PHBI pushed things forward with the warlord and warlock (rather a different thing from the 3e version), PHBII had the shaman and warden.  New concepts for D&D.  That's what seems to be lacking at the moment.  Novelty.  Conceptual innovation.

What bothers me is that the inspiration for practically every new D&D release (again, hexblade excepted*) since Darksun has been previous editions of D&D, rather then looking at the wide and wondrous world of modern fantasy to pull inspiration for something new.

* and the hexblade is very nice, yes.  In some ways I would have preferred for it to be a new class, or to be more fully integrated into the original warlock, but that's neither here nor there.

re: design freedom - I liked early essentials previews.  I like the idea of freeing up classes to have unique advancement trees, to gain class features at later levels, and so on.  But the designers seem to be using this freedom to do less with their new offerings, rather then more.  Only one encounter power for entire 30 level builds.  Sometimes the same encounter power over multiple builds or even classes.  For some classes no daily powers, for others many daily power levels with the power pre-selected.  Many classes with pre-selected utility powers.  One paragon path only per build.  Instead of doing the extra work that these classes would need to work with the existing multiclass and hybrid systems, they simply don't.  Little customization, little choice as a character levels, with the exception of the wizard, which noticeably of all of the post-e class builds we've seen stays with the pre-e format.

I know others have had different reactions to post-e material, but for me boring old ideas + boring classes = boring game.
Essentials would have been better if it was a side trek and not the evergreen permanent entity it is now.
Of course add on that it's purpose is highway entry first street and not tenth avenue.
In other words- essentials would have been cool if was done and wasn't carried forward with future products (starring at Heroes of Shadow & Heroes of Feywild-okay, the cover of Feywild reminds me of the song 'school is out').
Anyways, it's over now. Just have to live with it. Some good stuff appears to be out there- vampire as a class makes a lot of sense.

Besides- not like I have any control over it. They are going to do what they are going to do.
I don't know, hunterian.  Apparently, the WotC rep asked the local game store what their impression of D&D as whole was right now, and the guy told them of the split he has heard of and seen since the design of essentials.  When he was talking about it, several other customers chimed in with "I wish they would have kept it at 10 products" and "it feels like they are forgetting the 4th edition fans".

I would have to say that as fans we and our local game stores can do quite a bit to influence the path of the game.  Especially when people can flat out say, "if you published these kinds of things, I would hand you my money".  That, when delivered to the right people, and then from those people into the hands of the parent company can adjust the perception of what is "right" to publish, mainly because as a company, they want our money.

We just have to get to the telling the right people part of it.  Instead of, you know, yelling at one another on the internet like we fasns are prone to do. ;)
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
The player base around where I live has been split twice in the recent past. First, there was the Pathfinder/4e split and then 4e/Essentials split. Both splits seem to have been pretty even which means that where once there were only 3.5 players, there now are 50% Pathfinder players, 25% pure 4e players and 25% Essentials players. Me, I belong to the pure 4e group and don't like the Essentials "way to go forward" one bit.
I believe that most people who play D&D only play D&D, while Pathfinder players are less likely to restrict themselves to a single system.

I think this is probably approaching accuracy.  I would suggest refining this as follows:

I believe that many people who play D&D play only D&D, while Pathfinder players are more likely to play games other than Pathfinder as well.


  • First, this removes the almost inevitable trainwreck that the term "most" creates.

  • Second, it removes the negative connotation that "restrict themselves" carries.

Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
I believe that most people who play D&D only play D&D, while Pathfinder players are less likely to restrict themselves to a single system.

I think this is probably approaching accuracy.  I would suggest refining this as follows:

I believe that many people who play D&D play only D&D, while Pathfinder players are more likely to play games other than Pathfinder as well.


  • First, this removes the almost inevitable trainwreck that the term "most" creates.

  • Second, it removes the negative connotation that "restrict themselves" carries.




Agreed on all counts...but keep in mind that my intent was never to pass judgement.



Agreed on all counts...but keep in mind that my intent was never to pass judgement.

I believe you. My concern was less for your implications and more for how others will infer.

Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
Hi folks,

Just wanted to offer a preview of next week's column, for a sense of what some of the topics will be moving forward:



A Very Brief Look at Very Small Figures


Almost continuously since the mid-70s, D&D has featured an official line of miniature figures for fighters, dwarves, beholders, zombies, and almost everything in between. After all, Dungeons & Dragons sprang from the miniatures wargaming scene of the early 1970s. Yet while miniatures have always existed in some form with the game, not all gamers have embraced them. For every DM who owns shelf upon shelf of plastic and metal miniatures, there are others who absolutely refuse to let them hit the table...



There's also a poll at the end of next week's column, soliciting your input (and for that matter, one running now in relation to Chris Perkin's first column today: The DM Experience).

These horrible articles are a mockery of evrything that was great about D&D in previous editions.

The poll under the new followup article is a syndrome for what actually is wrong about current D&D.


"
Running a D&D campaign like a television series.
Creating memorable NPC antagonists and allies.
Preparing for a game session.
Creating in-depth stories and quests.
Integrating skill challenges into encounters.
Creating cool, evocative adventure locations.
Keeping players engaged in the campaign.
Plundering specific ideas from the Iomandra campaign."


The first thing is wrong on so many points i can't even begin with explaining.

You don't "create" memorable NPCs, but they become(!) memorable through play itself. Telling is not SHOWING.

RPG is not about "creating stories", because the "stories" are emergent from gameplay, not the other way around. If you try to do it the other way around, RPG becomes a mockery of its former self, and it becomes dysfunctional.

How often did you already try to fix the cluster**** that are skill challenges? How often has the "system" be redone? I can't count the number of times it has been done. It's not an organic part of gameplay, it's always feeling like tacked on (which it is) and because it tries to take out the actual act of role playing with dicerolling, if it wouldn't, then it would be a void useless mechanics that has no purpose AT ALL.

"Creative cool" locations aren't neither if they're implausible and don't fit the tone of D&D and the setting. Dumbening down the settings won't even help, regarding this aspect.

Keeping players engaged does not rest on a GMs shoulders alone.

Why should we care about the Iomandra campaign at all? We're role players after all, don't you think we (on our own) can SALVAGE what you present us with? Really?
These horrible articles are a mockery of evrything that was great about D&D in previous editions.

The poll under the new followup article is a syndrome for what actually is wrong about current D&D.


"
Running a D&D campaign like a television series.
Creating memorable NPC antagonists and allies.
Preparing for a game session.
Creating in-depth stories and quests.
Integrating skill challenges into encounters.
Creating cool, evocative adventure locations.
Keeping players engaged in the campaign.
Plundering specific ideas from the Iomandra campaign."


The first thing is wrong on so many points i can't even begin with explaining.

You don't "create" memorable NPCs, but they become(!) memorable through play itself. Telling is not SHOWING.

RPG is not about "creating stories", because the "stories" are emergent from gameplay, not the other way around. If you try to do it the other way around, RPG becomes a mockery of its former self, and it becomes dysfunctional.

How often did you already try to fix the cluster**** that are skill challenges? How often has the "system" be redone? I can't count the number of times it has been done. It's not an organic part of gameplay, it's always feeling like tacked on (which it is) and because it tries to take out the actual act of role playing with dicerolling, if it wouldn't, then it would be a void useless mechanics that has no purpose AT ALL.

"Creative cool" locations aren't neither if they're implausible and don't fit the tone of D&D and the setting. Dumbening down the settings won't even help, regarding this aspect.

Keeping players engaged does not rest on a GMs shoulders alone.

Why should we care about the Iomandra campaign at all? We're role players after all, don't you think we (on our own) can SALVAGE what you present us with? Really?



I disagree with pretty much everything above. Replacing roleplaying with skill challenges is perhaps the worst part of your argument. Once someone tells another person how to role-play- they pretty much loose credibility. I have seen it too many times where players role-play through a skill challenge. If you can't figure out how to role-play a skill challenge, perhaps Warhammer would be a good venue.

I liked the poll and picked Creating cool, evocative adventure locations.
These horrible articles are a mockery of evrything that was great about D&D in previous editions.



Disagree.



The first thing is wrong on so many points i can't even begin with explaining.


continue...


You don't "create" memorable NPCs, but they become(!) memorable through play itself. Telling is not SHOWING.



So in every campaign you have ever played NPC's didn't have a personality, powers, goals, etc. until the moment he popped in during the players? Pretty much you never have any clue what NPC's and such the players will meet fight and how they act until they show up? Cause to do so would require 'creating' a NPC and fleshing it out. What you seem to suggest is to completely adlib it.


RPG is not about "creating stories", because the "stories" are emergent from gameplay, not the other way around. If you try to do it the other way around, RPG becomes a mockery of its former self, and it becomes dysfunctional.



So you suggest that every campaign never do anything until it starts up? Again no planning? No potential plot points, no world creation, no backstory, no background info on characters? None of that? Really? A game lacking all that wouldn't be dysfunctional? Really? Do you think any rpg game or video game has no idea of what story they are making until they start playing it through? If you are trying to make a somewhat decent campaign you have to put some thought into the story before you start it. But again from the last point you make it seems you approach storytelling rpg's the way one would approach a Madlib.



How often did you already try to fix the cluster**** that are skill challenges? How often has the "system" be redone? I can't count the number of times it has been done. It's not an organic part of gameplay, it's always feeling like tacked on (which it is) and because it tries to take out the actual act of role playing with dicerolling, if it wouldn't, then it would be a void useless mechanics that has no purpose AT ALL.



My players almost never know when they are in a skill challenge and when they aren't. And are you really going to act like there were no mechanics for previous roleplay before? Really? 4e is the version that enforced mechanics on roleplay? Out of all the versions? .... really?


"Creative cool" locations aren't neither if they're implausible and don't fit the tone of D&D and the setting. Dumbening down the settings won't even help, regarding this aspect.


Saying implausible in a fantasy rpg is the same as saying that Dane Cook or Carlos Mencia is hilarious. Not only would it be an oxymoron and a paradox (depending on how you use it)... but it would seem to suggest that you don't know what the word means. 

And what exactly would the setting or tone of D&D be? I would say as a DM and player whatever I want it to be.... but apparently that idea is sadly mistaken.


Why should we care about the Iomandra campaign at all? We're role players after all, don't you think we (on our own) can SALVAGE what you present us with? Really?




Please don't speak for me. I know you feel that you speak for everyone but we want you to know that you really don't. I always welcome new campaign ideas. It allows me to take and give of them freely and do what I want with them. When DMing I prefer as many ideas as possible... especially if not all of them come from me.... cause I'm not... you know.... infallible....
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."-Douglas Adams
These horrible articles are a mockery of evrything that was great about D&D in previous editions.

The poll under the new followup article is a syndrome for what actually is wrong about current D&D.


"
Running a D&D campaign like a television series.
Creating memorable NPC antagonists and allies.
Preparing for a game session.
Creating in-depth stories and quests.
Integrating skill challenges into encounters.
Creating cool, evocative adventure locations.
Keeping players engaged in the campaign.
Plundering specific ideas from the Iomandra campaign."


The first thing is wrong on so many points i can't even begin with explaining.

You don't "create" memorable NPCs, but they become(!) memorable through play itself. Telling is not SHOWING.

RPG is not about "creating stories", because the "stories" are emergent from gameplay, not the other way around. If you try to do it the other way around, RPG becomes a mockery of its former self, and it becomes dysfunctional.

How often did you already try to fix the cluster**** that are skill challenges? How often has the "system" be redone? I can't count the number of times it has been done. It's not an organic part of gameplay, it's always feeling like tacked on (which it is) and because it tries to take out the actual act of role playing with dicerolling, if it wouldn't, then it would be a void useless mechanics that has no purpose AT ALL.

"Creative cool" locations aren't neither if they're implausible and don't fit the tone of D&D and the setting. Dumbening down the settings won't even help, regarding this aspect.

Keeping players engaged does not rest on a GMs shoulders alone.

Why should we care about the Iomandra campaign at all? We're role players after all, don't you think we (on our own) can SALVAGE what you present us with? Really?



First off, I agree that if a campaign is run like a television series, it becomes boring for players involved since there is rarely a point to anything at all. However, this sometimes is necessary for one-shots run at an flgs or at a convention. It could be possible that players might want to play more than one character, and running the campaign like a tv show might let them pick their character of choice before that week's adventure.

And yes, you do create memorable NPCS. If you are just fighting Orc Boss #5, then most likely no matter what, that NPC will not be memorable. Sure, a spur of the moment rping on part of the DM could make the orc memorable, but typically in my experience a villain is born out of an created npc that got away or interfered with the party in some fashion.  Also, unless you're an expert in coming up with background history and in-depth motivations on the fly, you will have to decide on them prior to playing.
An example being, I can guarntee that Strahd wouldn't be very memorable if you never knew anything about him prior to entering castle ravenloft and was just a stat block that said "He's in charge of the castle here are his stats.". 

Also, yes you do create stories in D&D. I'll use my own campaign as an example. Currently, I'm running a ravenloft campaign. I asked the players for background information on their characters prior to starting it up. As such, I have made sure that a few of the adventures had ties to each of pc's backgrounds. Had the players not written their background story, some of the adventures I wrote for them probably never would have occurred or existed. As such, it is veritable proof that stories are created. While I do agree that a playing out a story is more interesting than hearing about it, upholding the notion that creating stories is unnecessary is being a tad obtuse. 

There is no need to fix skill challenges because they are fine as is. Skill challenges are just there to make sure that a mechanic for Pass/fail exists should an objective come down to quantifiable die rolls. For example, say the objective of a portion of an adventure is surviving a blizzard. Should the PC's decide to just cast a few rituals to avoid the cold and to shadow walk out of the blizzard, the objective is complete and they should gain full XP. However, if the pc's decide to approach the obstacle by sheer skill alone, then the skill challenge success/failure aspect comes into play. 

Creative, cool locations can be the hallmarks of great adventures. I recall an adventure I wrote in a planescape campaign that involved sailing a flying ship through the elemental chaos through a swarm of swirling elements that occasionally switched to alternate elements (ex. a rock bursts into fire, and a ball of fire might turn to a glacial spike and be in the way of the ship). And to this day, its probably one of the most memorable adventures that I've run in 4e to date. While good stories don't necessarily have to be thrust into super insane locations to be memorable, sometimes it does accent and make it all the better.
 
I actually agree, keeping the players engaged is not the DM's responsibility alone. Its a two-way street. Players should be open and honest about what they like and don't like, and be respectful of other player's desires. However, advice to not run a boring campaign/adventure is a good thing for a DM. So I fail to see why you could find fault with this.

I'll have to agree with you about the Iomandra campaign, it doesn't sound too appealing but I'd be willing to hear it out maybe once or twice to give it a fair shake. But I will admit, I wasn't too thrilled reading about James Wyatt's articles about his (Greenbriar?) campaign.  So we'll see.
These horrible articles are a mockery of evrything that was great about D&D in previous editions.

Dude - breathe!

"RPG is not about "creating stories", because the "stories" are emergent from gameplay, not the other way around. If you try to do it the other way around, RPG becomes a mockery of its former self, and it becomes dysfunctional.

OK, this is the one thing in your post I actually agree with.  The rest - open your mind a little and see.  Fair enough, it might not be your most favourite RPG, but it has great merits all its own, regardless.

I believe that most people who play D&D only play D&D, while Pathfinder players are less likely to restrict themselves to a single system.

I think this is probably approaching accuracy.  I would suggest refining this as follows:

I believe that many people who play D&D play only D&D, while Pathfinder players are more likely to play games other than Pathfinder as well.


  • First, this removes the almost inevitable trainwreck that the term "most" creates.

  • Second, it removes the negative connotation that "restrict themselves" carries.



Well, I can only speak about the group of eight I commonly play 4E with, but every one of them plays or has played other RPG as well.  I think the only statement I would parse out of this would be:

I believe that many people who play D&D and knock 3E/Pathfinder play only D&D, while Pathfinder players who don't knock 4E are more likely to play games other than Pathfinder as well.
======= Balesir
These horrible articles are a mockery of evrything that was great about D&D in previous editions.

I too find myself disagreeing with the entirety of the post initiated by the quote.

Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
Danger, Will Robinson!  Disengage, disengage!
It would be a shame to see a thread with mostly civil discussion devalve into yet another boring installment of the edition wars. Skill challenges are only really mandatory for organized play (ie-LFR), and when I ran a home brewed game, I ignored in favor a more roleplaying oriented approach. For a game with limited time, skill challenges make a great way to move the story foward and keeping things from bogging down.

I'm suprised by some of the visceral reactions people have where D&D is invovled, and perhaps this is because people have a real love of they game. THey want everyone to play their chosen version because they feel other should see what they enjoy about their version. We gamers tend to go a little overboard sometimes.
The player base around where I live has been split twice in the recent past. First, there was the Pathfinder/4e split and then 4e/Essentials split. Both splits seem to have been pretty even which means that where once there were only 3.5 players, there now are 50% Pathfinder players, 25% pure 4e players and 25% Essentials players. Me, I belong to the pure 4e group and don't like the Essentials "way to go forward" one bit.

I would be careful jumping too conclusions based on your direct surroundings. We tend to hang out with people that favor the same style of gaming as we do, and hence they tend to go in the same direction. I remember a discussion with somebody some time ago who thought very few people played 4E, until I pointed out that of my gaming community only a very small percentage never plays 4E (I can think of 2 out of 40 or so), another somewhat larger percentage plays both and by far the most almost only play 4E (and a smattering of none-D&D games) and the local game shop I regularly visits sells a lot more D&D material than Pathfinder. None of the people I hang out with are in any way agitated by Essentials, seeing it as mostly another D&D product, although not really aimed at them since they prefer the modularity of the non-Essential stuff. I never saw it fracture my gaming community. The only reason I even know of the "splintering" is because of internet and the handful of posters contantly arguing about it.

Now whether my experience or yours is prelevent I don't know. I don't have access to the salesfigures of Paizo and WotC, nor the natural changes that happen regardless of edition. Pathfinder probably caused a bit of fracture (obviously), but I have real trouble believing Essentials did.
I too have to say that the irate gentleman who posted much earlier is ignorant...

Ultimately, you can disagree with the way that 4th Ed. is managed, and you have every right to that, you can choose not to like the skill challenge system, and anything else you wish, but to say that it is all a "mockery" of what RPGs are? Really? Hyperbole at best, and sillyness at worst.

Each person's definition of RPG differs, and each person's manner of playing them differs. Some people like the systems given in the 4th Ed. version of D&D, and others don't. I think Chris Perkins' article was an excellent insight into his campaign, as well as an inspiration for our own.

A number of books have been written concerning the game settings, containing plot lines, story elements, interesting traps/hazards, fantastic locales, etc... and I for one can tell you that I have many times through 3 editions of D&D plundered those resources for great information!

Kudos Mr. Perkins!
You don't "create" memorable NPCs, but they become(!) memorable through play itself. Telling is not SHOWING.

RPG is not about "creating stories", because the "stories" are emergent from gameplay, not the other way around. If you try to do it the other way around, RPG becomes a mockery of its former self, and it becomes dysfunctional.

Hey, RPGPundit. How ya doing?

This opinion is wrong in this forum too.
Essentials did fracture the customer base. That is not in debate. What is in debate is how much of a fracture...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
You don't "create" memorable NPCs, but they become(!) memorable through play itself. Telling is not SHOWING.

RPG is not about "creating stories", because the "stories" are emergent from gameplay, not the other way around. If you try to do it the other way around, RPG becomes a mockery of its former self, and it becomes dysfunctional.

Hey, RPGPundit. How ya doing?

This opinion is wrong in this forum too.



I lol'd.  To be fair to RPGPundit, the poster sounds like he's unskillfully parroting something RPGPundit has probably said.

I browse and lurk at the Pundit's website and follow the conversations with mild bemusement.  There is a charming anachronism, like watching SCA fans beat up on each other in a city park.  It's fun in its own way.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.
Honestly, I doubt you can actually measure fractures that well. I would say that the essentials fracture got healed as well as it can be. People (not lokaire) have tended to accept essentials over time. The only real people out there who are refusing to use essentials because it is essentials (instead of refusing to use it because they've already started a campaign and it wasn't available to start) are very few. If you look at fortune cards, people have really shut up about it, when it was a hot button issue only a couple weeks ago.
That isn't to say that some people don't like essentials; but it's not really a fracture unless if more than a couple of people are out on the forums pseudo-jedi mind tricking? whining? setting fire to WoTC's nonplants? actively protesting the changes, unlike 3.5 v. 4e.
like watching SCA fans beat up on each other in a city park


That caught me completely off guard, and I truly laughed out loud, causing my wife to ask me what was so funny. Thank you!


And so we can all enjoy the experience...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vljdsfphks


Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
...If you look at fortune cards, people have really shut up about it, when it was a hot button issue only a couple weeks ago...


Well, why should we keep talking about it? We've said our respective pieces and gotten of the soapbox. If we kept arguing we'd just sound like a broken record. Only time will tell whether they'll be successful or not.
The player base around where I live has been split twice in the recent past. First, there was the Pathfinder/4e split and then 4e/Essentials split. Both splits seem to have been pretty even which means that where once there were only 3.5 players, there now are 50% Pathfinder players, 25% pure 4e players and 25% Essentials players. Me, I belong to the pure 4e group and don't like the Essentials "way to go forward" one bit.

I would be careful jumping too conclusions based on your direct surroundings. We tend to hang out with people that favor the same style of gaming as we do, and hence they tend to go in the same direction. I remember a discussion with somebody some time ago who thought very few people played 4E, until I pointed out that of my gaming community only a very small percentage never plays 4E (I can think of 2 out of 40 or so), another somewhat larger percentage plays both and by far the most almost only play 4E (and a smattering of none-D&D games) and the local game shop I regularly visits sells a lot more D&D material than Pathfinder. None of the people I hang out with are in any way agitated by Essentials, seeing it as mostly another D&D product, although not really aimed at them since they prefer the modularity of the non-Essential stuff. I never saw it fracture my gaming community. The only reason I even know of the "splintering" is because of internet and the handful of posters contantly arguing about it.

Now whether my experience or yours is prelevent I don't know. I don't have access to the salesfigures of Paizo and WotC, nor the natural changes that happen regardless of edition. Pathfinder probably caused a bit of fracture (obviously), but I have real trouble believing Essentials did.



Well, considering you are a LFR admin, I'll take it with a grain of salt about your comment on Essentials. Granted, the main gist of your post is sound. Essentials is not very popular in my area and is hated a lot by the locals but I'd hardly, as you said, project that as the norm across this nation of ours.
The player base around where I live has been split twice in the recent past. First, there was the Pathfinder/4e split and then 4e/Essentials split. Both splits seem to have been pretty even which means that where once there were only 3.5 players, there now are 50% Pathfinder players, 25% pure 4e players and 25% Essentials players. Me, I belong to the pure 4e group and don't like the Essentials "way to go forward" one bit.

I would be careful jumping too conclusions based on your direct surroundings. We tend to hang out with people that favor the same style of gaming as we do, and hence they tend to go in the same direction. I remember a discussion with somebody some time ago who thought very few people played 4E, until I pointed out that of my gaming community only a very small percentage never plays 4E (I can think of 2 out of 40 or so), another somewhat larger percentage plays both and by far the most almost only play 4E (and a smattering of none-D&D games) and the local game shop I regularly visits sells a lot more D&D material than Pathfinder. None of the people I hang out with are in any way agitated by Essentials, seeing it as mostly another D&D product, although not really aimed at them since they prefer the modularity of the non-Essential stuff. I never saw it fracture my gaming community. The only reason I even know of the "splintering" is because of internet and the handful of posters contantly arguing about it.

Now whether my experience or yours is prelevent I don't know. I don't have access to the salesfigures of Paizo and WotC, nor the natural changes that happen regardless of edition. Pathfinder probably caused a bit of fracture (obviously), but I have real trouble believing Essentials did.



Well, considering you are a LFR admin, I'll take it with a grain of salt about your comment on Essentials. Granted, the main gist of your post is sound. Essentials is not very popular in my area and is hated a lot by the locals but I'd hardly, as you said, project that as the norm across this nation of ours.



It's normal around here.  Even our FLGS owners dislike it.  Well, more to the point, they dislike the rift it is making and continues to make in their players/customers.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Please keep your posts respectful and on topic.


It's normal around here.  Even our FLGS owners dislike it.  Well, more to the point, they dislike the rift it is making and continues to make in their players/customers.




Most of the 4E players in my FLGS don't see a rift re: Essentials. We mainly see it as a bunch of new options, some to our taste, and some not. The store management itself is pro 4E.

That being said, there are some 3.x and Pathfinder players in the store who look down on us for playing 4E, but certainly not all. In fact, there are players in our store active in campaigns for both.

I'd be surprised if the majority of players were polarized one way or the other, with most having the healthy "here are some new options, I can take them or leave them as I see fit" attitude.

We need to recognize that those of us who frequent the forums are the geeks that other geeks call geeks. We are not representative of the population as a whole, merely another subset. The fractures are probably not as large as one would imagine them to be just from reading internet forums.



It's normal around here.  Even our FLGS owners dislike it.  Well, more to the point, they dislike the rift it is making and continues to make in their players/customers.




Most of the 4E players in my FLGS don't see a rift re: Essentials. We mainly see it as a bunch of new options, some to our taste, and some not. The store management itself is pro 4E.

That being said, there are some 3.x and Pathfinder players in the store who look down on us for playing 4E, but certainly not all. In fact, there are players in our store active in campaigns for both.

I'd be surprised if the majority of players were polarized one way or the other, with most having the healthy "here are some new options, I can take them or leave them as I see fit" attitude.

We need to recognize that those of us who frequent the forums are the geeks that other geeks call geeks. We are not representative of the population as a whole, merely another subset. The fractures are probably not as large as one would imagine them to be just from reading internet forums.




I only mentioned it because the store co-owner and a few customers were all commiserating about how they saw a split, and that the guy had told the WotC rep that he saw a split and why it sounded like there was one (His biggest complaint he gets? That Essentials was intended to be "newb options", and now original 4th ed design fans feel left out in the cold.  Their and his words, paraphrased for convenience only).

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
The rift that has been made by WotC can't and won't be mended, not after all the effort they took to alienate all players of previous editions.
It's over guys, you can't repair the damage you did over all the years.
The only thing I see is self-pity and self-entitlement because some think WotC took away their ball.

People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. --George Orwell

There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. --Howard Zinn

He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster. --Friedrich Nietzsche

Devil\'s Brigade

It's a good thing that none of the complaints have any merit at all, or you might have come off as completely self-important and condescending.
It's a good thing that none of the complaints have any merit at all, or you might have come off as completely self-important and condescending.


I said some, not all.  Unfortunately for the ones with merit, there are more overshadowing them with their self-pity and self-entitlement.

People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. --George Orwell

There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. --Howard Zinn

He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster. --Friedrich Nietzsche

Devil\'s Brigade

Here's something they could do for profit. Release books for all editions. What I mean is go back and start selling previous editions books. Plus when you come out with a new supplement, like Heroes of Shadow, you put that book out with versions for all editions. Adventure modules would be for all editions. That way you repeat the fluff and the only thing you have to come up with is the crunch for each edition. So your production costs are pretty much cut in half. you use the same artwork, the same descriptions, the same maps. The only thing different is the rules material that goes with it... WotC that's a freebie...


The gamer in me sees this being awesome, even if my group only plays 4e right now.

The accountant in me looks t this and says: "****, that's expensive.  Have marketing do some research on the older edition stuff, and see if it would actually be worth it."
Ahh, so THIS is where I can add a sig. Remember: Killing an ancient God inside of a pyramid IS a Special Occasion, and thus, ladies should be dipping into their Special Occasions underwear drawer.
I think Mike makes several good points. It is hard to get your bearings if you don't know where you've been. The game is about the fun of playing the game.  I think some people have lost sight of the fact that D&D is supposed to be fun.  Calling people names on the intertubes is not what I think of when I think of fun. 

I DM a 1st edition AD&D game and play in a 2nd Edition AD&D game.  I stopped playing 2e in 1999 because of life and work.  I picked it back up in 2010 because I missed it and had some friends who were wanted to play.  I looked at 4e and Pathfinder and decided that I would stay with the old game I already knew.  I've never played the editions released by WotC. 


Any chance WotC will offer PDF's again? 
Here's something they could do for profit. Release books for all editions. What I mean is go back and start selling previous editions books. Plus when you come out with a new supplement, like Heroes of Shadow, you put that book out with versions for all editions. Adventure modules would be for all editions. That way you repeat the fluff and the only thing you have to come up with is the crunch for each edition. So your production costs are pretty much cut in half. you use the same artwork, the same descriptions, the same maps. The only thing different is the rules material that goes with it... WotC that's a freebie...


The gamer in me sees this being awesome, even if my group only plays 4e right now.

The accountant in me looks t this and says: "****, that's expensive.  Have marketing do some research on the older edition stuff, and see if it would actually be worth it."



I agree. Back in TSR times they had the problem that too many campaign settings competed against one another. I do not think that several editions of DnD competing against one another will serve WotC. If they publish 3rd edition material, they will help their competitor Paizo. And they will have to take away personnel power for that - or to support even older editions - from 4E, which is the latest edition. Also, I am not sure there are enough people who play the older editions (except 3rd) to be profitable. So in my opinion the costs are too high. And WotC must have researched that and concluded that it would not be a wise business decision.
The only way we can be unified if we all AGREE TO DISAGREE on the rules we are playing.


And don't argue with the DM if he creates Hercules with the strength of a Stone Giant or Ettin and yet he's only level 2.  Your pidgeon holing your DM if you do that.

Author of Elementalism in Atlas Games' Occult Lore. DAZ 3D
I'm not a big fan of reconciliation between the 3.5 edition and 4th fan base. If Wizards 4th edition had a stronger position and hadn't failed to loose players to Paizo/3.5, then we wouldn't be reading about us all getting along better. It's shows weakness.


^This.

It does show weakness.

The weakness is that 4e is the most reviled edition of D&D and divided the community like no other edition before.  

The weakness that WotC/Mearls cannot repair the community when it was the decision of WotC to fracture it.

Weakness engendered and encouraged by Slavisek at the onset of 4e to attack and despise all things of the past editions. 

You are not to blame.

You only follow the company.

You only buy it's products and turn your noses up at anything of the past. 

You still are not to blame.

You are part of the 'community'.

Now, WotC/Mearls wants you to play nice with us. None of you, especially the hardcore 4e lovers are going to accept input from an OSR player/DM with now (decades) of experience, let alone someone carrying a Pathfinder rulebook.

Paizo and OSR players are belittled and heckled in this community daily for being lovers of an older edition of a game that is an IP placeholder in a company that is losing money.

I am glad that D&D will die off or be sold off
 
Let it die a respectful death so it will not be tied to *EDIT* some lame toy line some years later.*EDIT*Wink

Paizo has inherited the soul of the game and OSR will make sure that the past is well kept. 
Have fun with 4e and don't blame us, blame Hasbro and Slavisek.

Do not worry. We are pretty accepting folk. 

We'll make room at the table for you.