|
i'd like to thank AZ for making some good posts in the last thread those were some good posts about print runs and such
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2010 07:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 02:46 |
|
|
The problem with the GSL wasn't 'THEY CONTROL US' or any of thsat hysteria bullshit. The problem was a genuinly horrible clause in the original GSL that forbade a company from publishing or even selling OGL products while they also had GSL products. It required them to clear their OGL stock and abandon the OGL, if they were going to publish GSL products. Mow this is IIRC no longer the case with the GSL. Last I checked, all you have to do is render them celarly distinct in a product. But back then for a company of any size, it was a huge deal, involving not only a complete change in their product line, but the end of their old product lines. This was the real problem with the GSL. Everything else is bullshit but this is a straight up bad thing, and the only real mistake that WOTC made- and it's a big one. It's clearly a clause inserted by some executive type jackass, and it's since been erased, but the damage is well and truly done. Now, I don't doubt for a second that the pazio guys are also big fat grognards. Their approach to the pathfinder rebuild, and other factors make it clear that overall they personally were happy to stick with 3e, and did not like what they were seeing in 4e.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2010 09:12
|
|
|
moths posted:This wasn't the case. The original licence was that a product had to be one system or the other. Ie: You couldn't sell a 3e adventure that also had 4e stats in the back, or vice versa. quote:If you wanted to update your Tomb of Licensed Adventure from 3e to 4e, you'd first have to get rid of the 3e backstock before you could start moving the 4e stock. They didn't want to be fighting against their old stuff for shelf space, and that makes sense. mixitwithblop posted:1. WoTC reserves the right to modify the agreement at any time. Hence, if they make a change you don't want to agree to, well you can no longer distribute your product. quote:2. You can't just slap the GSL license on your product and ship it. You have to deal with WoTC directly before attempting to publish your product. quote:3. WoTC reserves the right to terminate your license at any time. WoTC also reserves the right to terminate the GSL completely, in which you case you get a whopping six months to sell your stock and then its done. quote:4. You basically can't redefine almost anything that's in the core rulebooks. All those cool d20 based custom gameworld products? Gone! You can't describe character creation or advancement at all. It's their way, or the highway. And you can duplicate most of that poo poo just using new classes anyway. BTW, you mean system, not gameworld, you can certainly make your own setting using the GSL. happyelf fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Feb 28, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2010 20:31
|
|
|
I was all set to tear into mixitwithblop for being a jackass, but then Angry Diplomat tried to sneakin some olympics apologism or something and the olympics is terrible so now i don't know who to hate in conclusion pathfinder sucks
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2010 07:48
|
|
|
yeah he's pretyt good, i actually bought some art off him for a nerd book i'm (very slowly) finishing atm ^^^^try and guess what role and power source combo this guy is^^^^^ happyelf fucked around with this message at 11:46 on Mar 2, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2010 11:43
|
|
|
ha ha youall fell for the killer app launch good one mikan what's next guys are you going to play a few rounds of 4e on the Virtual Table Top?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 09:36
|
|
|
maptool is better than some goofy in-house app anyway
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 13:41
|
|
|
yeah this is actually looking kinda interesting, looks like they have a system set up for running kingdoms hopefully the system doesn't have too many 3e germs on it!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2010 08:48
|
|
|
Well, the role of magic, for one thing. And while both games also have goofy adventurer economies, but 3.5's is a fair bit goofier. Skill checks are another issue, as are any class specific variations in the system. Generally however, while i'm really interested in this, i'm leery of trusting the designers who brought us the pathfinder Fighter class. Not to mention the pathfinder wizards class. 4e is a very innovative, well built system, pathfinder is not. I honestly don't know if they can pull off an interesting design here- I certainly hope they can. And on the other hand, there are all sorts of great hooks in 4e that such a system could build on. Skill challenges, rituals, stuff like that. Plus, there are elements of 3e I had fun with that they'll probably neglect. I mean a high leval druid or other spellcaster could pretty much terraform the whole kingdom using mud, rock, and dig spells, but I doubt they'll be supporting that- of course if they do, it just makes spellcasters that much more ludicrously powerful.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2010 12:25
|
|
|
I'm actually interested in seeing what's in that book since there was literally no gming advice in their core rule book.Kvantum posted:They understand it, they just don't care about it as much as WotC.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 06:14
|
|
|
i love how action packed all the pathfinder art is, there's always people leaping around, doing lots of cool manuvers and stuff, and also a particularly large amount of forced movement
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2010 17:55
|
|
|
which guy was the crappy pencil guy, out of interest?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2010 19:00
|
|
|
yeah i read the post it's really loving annoying when devs act coy about poo poo like that
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2010 20:32
|
|
|
and in contrast most 4e art seems to be 'stand around, occasionally blast a dude or cast a cool spell, not really move much'
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2010 05:35
|
|
|
Argali posted:Anyone else out there playing 4E in the Golarian setting?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2010 23:02
|
|
|
hey guys, it's all well and good to bitch about racist ethnic cariacatures, but everything in an rpg setting is a cariacature, and much of it has a racist subtext. i mean, tribal elves who live in the forest, who have bows and feathers in their hair? good indians surface goblins, wierd raiding creatures that come out of the wilds riding wolves to raid and burn? bad indians i mean poo poo, the whole idea that there are evil swarthy barbaric races out there that you're allowed to kill. . . that's pretty bad do we all remember the dark stalkers or whoever from 4e? evil shadow jews. i'm not even sure if the guys who drew them know that- they probably jsut based the look on old mythical stereotypes, not realising that they too have been influenced by unpleasant concepts like antisemetic caricature it's a lot harder to avoid this stuff than you'd expect, and sometimes people riff on it deliberatly, although that doesn't nesecarily turn out very well. i took the pcs in my game to a fantasy version of africa during the pre-neoimperialist period, and despite my best efforts, apart from other big problems with the plot, it still came across as 'white people save black people'. and on a more legitimate front, it's ok to have fantasy egypt in your game. there's nothing wrong with taking people where they want to go, and a lot of people enjoy going to historical or cultural sites in games, the same as they enjoy certain fantasy tropes. i tink mikan has a point above but still, 'oh golly we get to go to egypt' is still a pretyt legit thing for somebody to enjoy in a game. honestly the worst thing about pathfinder is the fantasy america that deftly dodges the worstthings about america's history PeterWeller posted:The more I hear, the more I am convinced Golarian was Paizo's way of having their own "Realms". happyelf fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Apr 26, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2010 23:14
|
|
|
honestly leaving everything else aside, if i were to do a kitchen sink setting with lots of dominant human races, the last thing i'd do is attach them all to existing concepts sure if somebody wants to be a ninja or w/e you should cover them, and there is the issue of genre tropes- asian ones in particular are genre tropes a lot of people enjoy that said, a superior option is clearly that if you're going to make a bunch of human and nonhuman cultures, you should build them from the ground up now i'm guilty of doing otherwise myself imc. in my game, the duchies are all based vaguely on existing ethnic and cultural groups, and there are implications about the tribal popultion as well, although they're mised between a lot of backgrounds and also influenced by colonialism. there's plenty that differentiates them as well, but handles liek these still allow people to grasp a concept and gain additional inspiration. on top of this, i'm a fan of history, and so i've put a lot of historical tropes into action in ym game- colonialsm, revolution, hegemony, and so on- and i've attached culture concepts to a degree, in order to help present that idea. for isntance in my game, the military of the dominant empire is almost napoleonic in it's era of dress. now as noted above, this can failat times, but it can also provide a lot of groundwork and evoke themes more easily than they otherwise could be.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2010 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 02:46 |
|
|
honestly tho like Consider thedas, the dragon age setting. it's very much a standard setting but it's still better than loving gloarion. the qunari are pretty cool, atho they draw a lot from muslim/turkic inspiration, and the dwarves have a cool hook, too. the eurolike nations are there, and that can get a bit thick, but still, there is a lot in there that works, and i'm saying this as not a big fan of bioware writing i think gloarion could have been a lot better, and i think like a lot of pathfinder, it's a bit too perfunctory
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2010 06:24
|
|