|
fool_of_sound posted:My reading is that the game is more ambivalent about the actual existence of demons and witchcraft and miracles. Everyone in the game setting is absolutely certain they exist, and react accordingly, but I remember the actual effects of demons and witchcraft being limited to stuff that can plausibly happen without supernatural intervention. More like miraculous/diabolical coincidences that are maybe, maybe not actually magic. Demonic possession cause physical changes in the people they possess quote:Choose a number of Manifestations equal to the number of dice: Changes in body shape, changes in hands, changes in facial features, changes in hair, nails or teeth, changes in eyes. quote:Recap: Possessed people: Choose a number of Manifestations and a number of Powers equal to the number of dice in the person’s Relationship with the demon. Manifestations: changes in body shape, changes in hands, changes in facial features, changes in hair nails or teeth, changes in eyes. The example possessed NPC is pretty subtle: quote:Manifestations: You have some wiggle room to imply "well maybe it just looks like they changed" but it's also open to much more explicit interpretations.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
Meyers-Briggs Testicle posted:has anyone successfully make an rpg where you play as an oppressive/evil real life entity (dont say the modern day US, har har, I mean like the confederacy) SLA industries? Space Marine? Possibly, Judge Dredd?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
hyphz posted:SLA industries? Space Marine? Possibly, Judge Dredd? I don’t think at least two of those are real life entities, but I admit that I’m behind on the Trump thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
Is 5e still alive? We're at the 5 year mark and that's usually when the next edition is announced?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
Nah this poo poo's making bank and is the dominating image of the whole idea of RPGs if you want to see the future imagine a fighter making melee basic attacks forever
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
Cutting costs and not actually producing anything new is the ideal profit source for 21st century capitalism, so I wouldn't be surprised to see Hasbro/WotC just bleed every coin they can out of neglecting 5e, because investing in new product means next quarter's returns might be down 0.0002%.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:Nah this poo poo's making bank and is the dominating image of the whole idea of RPGs I'm not saying it's doing bad financially, it's just that 5 years is how long they last before the supplement treadmill model produces significantly diminished returns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
I went into a Barnes and Noble today that last summer was mostly Pathfinder and today it was dominated by 5e with barely and Pathfinder on the shelf. I haven't played 5e but it sounds like an even more refined 3.5. confirm/deny?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
Covok posted:I'm not saying it's doing bad financially, it's just that 5 years is how long they last before the supplement treadmill model produces significantly diminished returns. They don't even make that many supplements, though. Like one a year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
Len posted:I went into a Barnes and Noble today that last summer was mostly Pathfinder and today it was dominated by 5e with barely and Pathfinder on the shelf. I haven't played 5e but it sounds like an even more refined 3.5. confirm/deny? Nope. It's a simplified 3.5 but they did a lot of simplification by just cutting out clunky systems and replacing them with 'eh the GM can make something up'. It's more really boring than actively bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
D&D is kept around for licensing, they really don't give a poo poo about the RPG. It doesn't lose money and they have to put basically no effort into it. 5e has a glacial release schedule, so almost nothing interesting has come out for it so far, not that there was anything interesting to build on to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
S.J. posted:D&D is kept around for licensing, they really don't give a poo poo about the RPG. It doesn't lose money and they have to put basically no effort into it. 5e has a glacial release schedule, so almost nothing interesting has come out for it so far, not that there was anything interesting to build on to begin with. The ravnica thing was a good idea and something I remember folks really wanted in 4th edition
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
Len posted:I went into a Barnes and Noble today that last summer was mostly Pathfinder and today it was dominated by 5e with barely and Pathfinder on the shelf. I haven't played 5e but it sounds like an even more refined 3.5. confirm/deny? Pathfinder is also winding down before Pathfinder 2e this summer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:The ravnica thing was a good idea and something I remember folks really wanted in 4th edition I didn't say it was all bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Pathfinder is also winding down before Pathfinder 2e this summer. I haven't been following that, please tell me there's the standard edition shitstorm of "BUT IT'S DIFFERENT"
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
Len posted:I haven't been following that, please tell me there's the standard edition shitstorm of "BUT IT'S DIFFERENT" Yes. It’s very close to the 3e to 4e changeover, actually, as it’s taking a lot of inspiration from 4e. Pathfinder 2e is looking like it has a good chance of being an actually good game with clear rules and good math and stuff. They ran actual play tests and everything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Yes. It’s very close to the 3e to 4e changeover, actually, as it’s taking a lot of inspiration from 4e. Pathfinder 2e is looking like it has a good chance of being an actually good game with clear rules and good math and stuff. They ran actual play tests and everything. If 3/3.5/pf were my least favorite D&Ds because of messy multiclassing, many trap options, and bullshit/boring swordfightmans, is it worth me looking at PF2, or does it still have all that stuff?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
It's gonna be hillarious if there's some kinda bizzaro swap and pathfinder becomes the good math/trying something new rpg and attracts all the 4th edition fans, and all the pf fans who just wanted to play 3e forever hop back to d&d Remember both the 1st pf and 5e had 'extensive playtests' with open betas that lasted nearly a year and in both cases it was really just advertising and nothing identified as bugs and jank from day 1 was fixed. Edit: well technically you could maybe count 5e as having some improvements over the NEXT packets, but not because of iterative design, just because NEXT was whatever they could throw together and pull out of their rear end from packet to packet rather than a system being designed. Coolness Averted fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Mar 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 00:39
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Yes. It’s very close to the 3e to 4e changeover, actually, as it’s taking a lot of inspiration from 4e. Pathfinder 2e is looking like it has a good chance of being an actually good game with clear rules and good math and stuff. They ran actual play tests and everything. What a bizarro world concept. I'll have to keep an eye open.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:It's gonna be hillarious if there's some kinda bizzaro swap and pathfinder becomes the good math/trying something new rpg and attracts all the 4th edition fans, and all the pf fans who just wanted to play 3e forever hop back to d&d Arivia posted:Yes. It’s very close to the 3e to 4e changeover, actually, as it’s taking a lot of inspiration from 4e. Pathfinder 2e is looking like it has a good chance of being an actually good game with clear rules and good math and stuff. They ran actual play tests and everything. I'm extremely doubtful of that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
ddnt starfinder just come out and even pathfinder fans think its awful?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
So far Pathfinder 2e has a few 4e elements but suffers from the designers being committed to a foolish consistency and rules-as-physics which seems to bloat everything. And really without Warlords I’m not interested.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:It's gonna be hillarious if there's some kinda bizzaro swap and pathfinder becomes the good math/trying something new rpg and attracts all the 4th edition fans, and all the pf fans who just wanted to play 3e forever hop back to d&d Yeah I dunno if I care about "PF for 4th ed fans!" but I'm gonna get excited if it looks like good maths and tries something new are both true. Maxwell Lord posted:So far Pathfinder 2e has a few 4e elements but suffers from the designers being committed to a foolish consistency and rules-as-physics which seems to bloat everything. Red flag right there, can you elaborate? Also what do you mean by "foolish consistency"? Like the usual RPG thing where you have X, Y, and Z which are fine and also XY which is actually pretty cool but then "obviously" you gotta fill in the grid with XZ, YX, ZX, etc which all feel shoehorned in and halfassed? Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Mar 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:Also what do you mean by "foolish consistency"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 01:21
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:If 3/3.5/pf were my least favorite D&Ds because of messy multiclassing, many trap options, and bullshit/boring swordfightmans, is it worth me looking at PF2, or does it still have all that stuff? Multiclassing is a lot cleaner, swordfightmens are much better, but there is going to be a trazillion options. You now get general/class/skill feats, all of which are separate things you choose from different lists. @Coolness Averted: Yeah, that was very much NOT the Pathfinder 2e playtest. I don't know if the website is still up for it, but they actually shoved groups into the grinder to break them and break the system in every way they possibly could. The playtest adventures had sections like "hello what happens if your players nova like crazy so power management isn't an issue" and "everyone's going to die. we want to see when they die and how hard they fight before they die because then we know how our health system's going to work." They have been pretty upfront about a lot of changes like throwing out the entire magic item system when it wasn't working, completely rewriting the paladin to allow for other alignment options, poo poo like that. They did an actual playtest, and a lot of people gnashed their teeth over how unfun it was unlike the PF 1e/5e playtests. @fool_of_sound: yeah, Starfinder sucked. This time they got the math right the first time round! @Maxwell Lord: I didn't see anything rules as physics in the playtest stuff I read or played. They're pretty upfront about the rules not trying to be simulationist this time around I think. If you think having the usual collection of D&D spells is rules as physics or something then they're really not aiming for you. I was wrong. Looking at the playtest bestiary, NPCs are built using the same numbers as monsters and do not share creation rules with PCs. They instead have selected class options to make them feel like members of the appropriate class, like the class templates/class grafts Pathfinder 1e had. Arivia fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Mar 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 02:23
|
|
|
Arivia posted:@Coolness Averted: Yeah, that was very much NOT the Pathfinder 2e playtest. I don't know if the website is still up for it, but they actually shoved groups into the grinder to break them and break the system in every way they possibly could. The playtest adventures had sections like "hello what happens if your players nova like crazy so power management isn't an issue" and "everyone's going to die. we want to see when they die and how hard they fight before they die because then we know how our health system's going to work." They have been pretty upfront about a lot of changes like throwing out the entire magic item system when it wasn't working, completely rewriting the paladin to allow for other alignment options, poo poo like that. They did an actual playtest, and a lot of people gnashed their teeth over how unfun it was unlike the PF 1e/5e playtests. Yes, this sounds like exactly how playtesting on 4e went. I brutally murdered my party repeatedly by stacking manticore poison DOTs and that was more than common enough for them to realize it was a problem and change how DOT stacking worked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 03:50
|
|
|
I got the impression with Starfinder that even the 3.5 diehards who glommed onto Pathfinder find the d20 system garbage when the context of familiarity is removed. Same thing happened with a lot of the d20 glut. Sounds like Paizo realised there's no way they can compete on nostalgia with the original flavour going all-in on it, so they might as well try to go for the last bunch of disgruntled fans alienated by the new edition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 04:09
|
|
|
Yeah I'm with Arivia in that the PF2 playtest felt a lot like a genuine and sincere attempt at leveraging player feedback to improve the game's design. It wasn't just the PR exercise that the PF1 playtest was, and the direction that the game moved in felt a lot more positive than D&D 5e playtest actively making the game worse over time. I also want to point out that "rules-as-physics" is far less of a concern on this go-around: monsters have had their separate design process apart from player-characters since at least Pathfinder Unchained, and then was adapted for Starfinder, and then iterated upon and used again for PF2. Heck, monsters and NPCs don't even have ability scores anymore, just the ability modifiers. As well, skill check DCs aren't simulationist anymore, either - PF2 just has a single DC to reference against the character's level, with a modifier for making it harder or easier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 04:11
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I got the impression with Starfinder that even the 3.5 diehards who glommed onto Pathfinder find the d20 system garbage when the context of familiarity is removed. Same thing happened with a lot of the d20 glut. There was that, but it also didn't help Starfinder that the math was even more broken than Pathfinder's and, more importantly, more visibly broken. It's really easy to look at how DCs scale vs how your own abilties scale and go "wait, one goes up way faster than the other."
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 04:16
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Yeah I'm with Arivia in that the PF2 playtest felt a lot like a genuine and sincere attempt at leveraging player feedback to improve the game's design. It wasn't just the PR exercise that the PF1 playtest was, and the direction that the game moved in felt a lot more positive than D&D 5e playtest actively making the game worse over time. What the gently caress? This sounds like not poo poo and it confuses me
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 04:36
|
|
|
NinjaDebugger posted:Yes, this sounds like exactly how playtesting on 4e went. I brutally murdered my party repeatedly by stacking manticore poison DOTs and that was more than common enough for them to realize it was a problem and change how DOT stacking worked. There were some issues like that in the playtest, I remember. One recurring problem was people not running the playtest as a playtest and repeatedly wiping their parties because they weren’t paying attention to instructions. “My goblins are smart so they hid in the darkness and sniped with their bows and TPKed the party in the first fight!” What made me think of this was a very vocal playtesting group from like 4chan that tried to rules-as-physics the playtest and did not listen to the game working that way. They never made it past the second adventure because their GM kept using a manticore’s Charisma to Intimidate party members into jumping off cliffs and dying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 04:38
|
|
|
senrath posted:There was that, but it also didn't help Starfinder that the math was even more broken than Pathfinder's and, more importantly, more visibly broken. It's really easy to look at how DCs scale vs how your own abilties scale and go "wait, one goes up way faster than the other." It also didn't help that the Starfinder world was dull as poo poo. Part of Paizo's whole thing was selling Golarion as a setting, and Starfinder's setting was extremely and obviously low effort.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 09:12
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:As well, skill check DCs aren't simulationist anymore, either - PF2 just has a single DC to reference against the character's level, with a modifier for making it harder or easier. I don’t like this, actually. It seems like it would just make more sense to not have skill bonuses scale in and of themselves (unless your mastery or w/e it’s called upticks).
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
I like it because, if nothing else, it has the same effect as the previous way, but with much less fiddling. And removes having to look up a table for DC's. The GM still has to assess the difficulty relative to the character (as they would before), but removing that look up is good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 15:24
|
|
|
Kibner posted:I like it because, if nothing else, it has the same effect as the previous way, but with much less fiddling. And removes having to look up a table for DC's. The GM still has to assess the difficulty relative to the character (as they would before), but removing that look up is good. What I’m saying is, they don’t even need to have a table. If skills themselves are static (as in, a level 1 guy Trained in thievey and a level 20 guy Trained in thievery both roll at +2) then you just have to know that a “hard” check is DC 15 rather than cross reference “hard” and “level 20” on a matrix somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:What I’m saying is, they don’t even need to have a table. If skills themselves are static (as in, a level 1 guy Trained in thievey and a level 20 guy Trained in thievery both roll at +2) then you just have to know that a “hard” check is DC 15 rather than cross reference “hard” and “level 20” on a matrix somewhere. I guess I misunderstood how it worked, then. Yeah, your way makes it easier. I can only assume they didn't do it that way because it removed a sense of progression from the player making his numbers go up every level.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
Kibner posted:They don't even make that many supplements, though. Like one a year. So, then, what's the point? The core book was bare bones. Without supplements, it'd just be boring generic F20 game#1200.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
Covok posted:So, then, what's the point? The core book was bare bones. Without supplements, it'd just be boring generic F20 game#1200. Is there ever a reason to capitalism? There has to be a new edition of D&D or else the brand fades away and profits are lost. That’s how Hasbro sees it. Mearls keeps his lovely edition going so that elfgames aren’t controlled by SJW storygamers. That’s it. That’s the “why” of 5e. The how is complicated by the grogs and the giant explosion of Actual Plays, but the why is pretty simple.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
Covok posted:So, then, what's the point? The core book was bare bones. Without supplements, it'd just be boring generic F20 game#1200.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
At this point, all D&D has to do to succeed forever is just be the same thing. That's it. D&D is the old comfy sweater of RPGs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 19:15
|
|
