OgreBattle wrote:Does Pathfinder have any equivalent to Bo9S? Considering that they 'balanced the Fighter' already, what does their audience think of Bo9S?
The Pathfinder marketing department and the fanbase is deeply invested in the idea that no 3.5E books or concepts exist -- let alone are relevant to their game -- unless it was already represented by Pathfinder. So you'll get some convenient amnesia followed by: 'What's an airport Bo9S, again?'
Seriously, you didn't think that they were serious about the whole backwards compatibility thing, did you? Fuck no! They're like Wikipedia; they bootstrapped their product off of the backs of nerds and fans then kicked them out once they were able to reach self-sustaining critical mass.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
A lot of people, including me, will think less of you if you use that portmanteau in that context. So I recommend expunging it from your vocabulary and finding something else.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
OgreBattle wrote: Does Pathfinder have any equivalent to Bo9S?
Equivalent in the sense of what?
There's a rogue variant that makes the rogue obsolete (ninja) and a monk variant that makes the monk obsolete (qinggong monk), but I'm not sure that's what you're going for.
I think it says volumes about the fanbases of 3e and 4e that the 4th edition players called the 3e players "3tards" and the 3rd edition players refrained from calling the 4th edition players "4rons". The coined term "4rries" is simply a lot more descriptive and a lot less insulting than "3tards". Surprising as this may be, calling 4th edition players "4rries" was the high road.
In a very special episode of The Gaming Den, Lago has his feelings hurt, and Frank gives a lesson on the power of hurtful words.
hogarth wrote:
There's a rogue variant that makes the rogue obsolete (ninja) and a monk variant that makes the monk obsolete (qinggong monk), but I'm not sure that's what you're going for.
Maneuvers and whatnot.
Looking at the Qingong (misspelled 'Qigong'...) Monk, they can select Power Attack as an ability that costs qi. It's pretty amazing that this is a straight boost to Monk hahah.
Last edited by OgreBattle on Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
wotmaniac wrote:Since when is reflavoring your shit all of a sudden goddamned revolutionary?! I've been doing that shit since I started back in '94.
Somebody, please explain this to me.
That is an interesting thread. I'd like to quote this person from page 2 in that thread to explain it to you.
I will agree, a lot of the reflavoring issue is just encouraging it in the rule books. 3.x did that to an extent, but not as much as 4e. However there are other parts to the issue.
Emerikol wrote:If a player wanted his magic missile to look a little different but be mechanically identical I as a 3e,2e,1e DM would have said sure.
One question is: How much of the mechanics are enforcements of specific flavour?
For instance:
Spell Resistance means that you can't reflavour spells to not be magic, without changing the mechanics.
Whereas without spell resistance you CAN reflavour spells not to be magic, without changing the mechanics.
Spell resistance is a major thing so being able to use reflavoring to get around it just seems wrong.
Creatures having resistance to specific damage types means you can't reflavour your damage type, without changing the mechanics.
Without damage resistance/vulnerability, you can reflavour your damage type without changing the mechanics.
However, damage resistance/vulnerabilities COULD be equally common such that, as long as you're consistent, reflavouring (while a mechanical change) would be a balanced one.
Etc.
4e has less of these things than 3.x did, but it's not completely lacking them.
5th won't be either. The question is, will it have more or less, and how much will it break the balance of the game to change the mechanics to fit the new fluff?
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
Huh, qigong makes a lot more sense than qinggong. The latter specifically refers to body lightening in wuxia, where people float gracefully through the air and light on willow branches and so on.
If your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.
OgreBattle wrote:In a very special episode of The Gaming Den, Lago has his feelings hurt, and Frank gives a lesson on the power of hurtful words.
I just thought you might appreciate the 'hey not cool' warning. But if you want to sling around homophobic invective in order to stick it to some 5E skubs, that's your business. Just keep in mind that it makes you look like a YouTube commentator and a total tool.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Haha, I did not even have an glue what it was supposed to mean, before you mentioned it beeing homophobic.
Red_Rob wrote:
I mean, I'm pretty sure the Mayans had a prophecy about what would happen if Frank and PL ever agreed on something. PL will argue with Frank that the sky is blue or grass is green, so when they both separately piss on your idea that is definitely something to think about.
4rries are idiots. They are desperate for something, ANYTHING, they can cling to that will make 4e seem good. But there is nothing. And everyone knows it.
Even WotC knows 4e sucks dick at this point. They are giving more support to their older editions by re-releasing 3.5 Spell Compendiums and AD&D adventure modules, rather than support 4e game which has... no releases at all anymore. Just dogshit in DDI which is written by rejects.
4e lovers should just go back to having sex with their dogs and stop trying to influence the world of RPGs.
OgreBattle wrote:In a very special episode of The Gaming Den, Lago has his feelings hurt, and Frank gives a lesson on the power of hurtful words.
I just thought you might appreciate the 'hey not cool' warning. But if you want to sling around homophobic invective in order to stick it to some 5E skubs, that's your business. Just keep in mind that it makes you look like a YouTube commentator and a total tool.
I guess 3tards is not offensive to the mentally ill, though?
ishy wrote:
That is an interesting thread. I'd like to quote this person from page 2 in that thread to explain it to you.
yeeeaaaahhh ...... I didn't make it past the 2nd post.
I got sick of hearing about the Awesome Power of Refluff back in '09.
I get the point of that post -- but it's a non-point.
If your RPG is so devoid of meaningful design depth that I can literally refluff anything in to literally anything else (or have to), then you've given me a pretty vapid fucking "game" -- and one that isn't worth me shelling out more § than my car is worth. Christ-on-a-cracker, I might just be better off simply playing d6-lite.
*WARNING*: I say "fuck" a lot.
"The most patriotic thing you can do as an American is to become filthy, filthy rich."
- Mark Cuban
I do know that back when I worked at a college (James Madison University if it matters) there was a push to classify the word "retard" as a hate word in line with "bundle of sticks" or "mispronouncing the word negro". I don't know what came of it, that was a long time ago and more than likely all those kids have graduated already.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
CAt28 wrote:I do know that back when I worked at a college (James Madison University if it matters) there was a push to classify the word "retard" as a hate word in line with "bundle of sticks" or "mispronouncing the word negro". I don't know what came of it, that was a long time ago and more than likely all those kids have graduated already.
I don't know where 'retarded' is on the euphemism treadmill for 'stupid but not neurologically impaired person', like idiot or pinhead. I'm sympathetic to arguments that it hasn't advanced enough not to be hateful. Someone calling another person 'retarded' would be unprofessional in a way that calling someone 'imbecilic' or 'moronic' wouldn't be.
British pork offal/tripe though? That's definitely still in 'bigots trying to enforce social domination' territory. Maybe in 15-20 years things will change so that it's at the level of 'Indian summer'. We'll see.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
As a straight white male I always have trouble identifying whether I find name-restriction arguments idiotic because I've never had to deal with a personal oppression, or because I genuinely think that trying to fight a battle against aggression and insult through the use of changing the politically correct titles for the retarded and whatnot is misdirected.
I like to think it's because I am a free speech advocate, but I can't know.
Last edited by Dean on Tue Apr 02, 2013 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DSMatticus wrote:Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. I am filled with an unfathomable hatred.
