tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post5430967231691129806..comments2024-03-28T20:36:33.364-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: An Opportunity MissedJames Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-74347079943804564992009-04-24T09:12:00.000-04:002009-04-24T09:12:00.000-04:00The notion that a combination of old and new desig...<I>The notion that a combination of old and new designs can only end in the old design being "sullied" just seems unhelpful to me and one which, ultimately, doesn't produce as much new material from the community. (I'd rather a C&C tried and failed than all that was churned out was yet more adventures with blue and white maps)</I>There's a couple of things at work here you have to understand. First, old schoolers generally do believe that system matters. The reason there's such a strongly negative reaction to the introduction of innovations like the SIEGE Engine is that they think these things undermine what they like about the old games. It's not simply a knee-jerk aversion to the new; it's a feeling of "if ain't broke, why fix it?" Second, many -- though not all -- old schoolers don't care much about new product. There's a strong do-it-yourself mentality at work here. There's minimal "need" for new material.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-52925665611476551532009-04-21T11:19:00.000-04:002009-04-21T11:19:00.000-04:00Chris,
My beef with Pathfinder is quite simple: g...Chris,<br /><br />My beef with <I>Pathfinder</I> is quite simple: given that so much of it is taken up with rules and background I do not need nor will I use, its cost is prohibitive. I simply will not get enough use out of the majority of its content to justify paying the price Paizo needs to sell it out to turn a profit on it. <br /><br />If the cost were lower, I <I>might</I> be willing to overlook the unnecessary detail, but maybe not. Bear in mind that I prefer the 1980 <I>World of Greyhawk</I> folio over the 1983 boxed set.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-60114014664623916602009-04-21T11:05:00.000-04:002009-04-21T11:05:00.000-04:00So I'm at a bit of a loss here, James. If I'm rea...So I'm at a bit of a loss here, James. If I'm reading you correctly, it sounds like you're saying that you like the material "unofficially" but you can't "officially" like it because it comes from the 3.5 gaming family and those products are too detailed with too many rules.<br /><br />I understand the rules argument, but I fail to see how you can criticize a sourcebook for being too detailed. Paizo doesn't force you to read all that flavour text, nor do they force you to impose it on your players.<br /><br />Don't see why you can't use this sourcebook as inspiration with whatever 0e variant you prefer.<br /><br />So if they make great settings then how is this bad? Creativity is always a merging of what you are carrying with you from a variety of sources, applied in a new way. No system has ever forced you to use everything they write.incalescohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11921092249964371006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-91394566843287278002009-04-21T07:28:00.000-04:002009-04-21T07:28:00.000-04:00I don't believe anyone's stated that there's nothi...<I>I don't believe anyone's stated that there's nothing to be learned from later game designs.</I>Well, I can only say that I did not read "anything other than a greater or lesser degree of unfortunate pollution" in that way.<br /><br /><I>I think unified mechanics like the SIEGE Engine wreak havoc on the class system by over-emphasizing the mechanical importance of ability scores</I>I certainly appreciate specific examples being bad, and as I said in my own post I get that people seeking a retro-game aren't necesarilly looking for anything to be redesigned. <br /><br />I guess I often find the retro-gaming community to have some, er, interesting approaches to "new" material which are no less illogical than the "it is new, therefore it is good" they accuse others of having. The notion that a combination of old and new designs can only end in the old design being "sullied" just seems unhelpful to me and one which, ultimately, doesn't produce as much new material from the community. (I'd rather a C&C tried and failed than all that was churned out was yet more adventures with blue and white maps)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-57845532700826553402009-04-20T16:40:00.000-04:002009-04-20T16:40:00.000-04:00But the notion that's there's nothing to l...<I>But the notion that's there's nothing to learn from later games (and specifically WotC) seems a bit of an unhealthy attitude for people to take. I mean, sure, certain things go against the grain: but I'm curious as to how someone can seriously say that there's nothing to be gained by, say, C&C's attempt at a unified mechanic in the SIEGE engine or the basic principle behind monster template design in 3E or 4E.</I><BR><BR>I don't believe anyone's stated that there's <I>nothing</I> to be learned from later game designs. Speaking for myself, though, I don't work on the assumption that newer means better, especially when the older designs work just fine for my needs. I think unified mechanics like the SIEGE Engine wreak havoc on the class system by over-emphasizing the mechanical importance of ability scores. Some people like that and that's fine, but it's not my preference.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-26641320961419616802009-04-20T16:33:00.000-04:002009-04-20T16:33:00.000-04:00Why not back up your claim with a little 'simple' ...<I>Why not back up your claim with a little 'simple' conversion work?</I><BR><BR>My point wasn't that I couldn't convert <I>Pathfinder</I> to <I>Swords & Wizardry</I> with ease. The point is why would I spend money on a product that requires me to do so?<br /><br /><I>What's so difficult about that? If the world is interesting, a less-detailed version of it will still be interesting. Why do you place an upper limit on the amount of world detail your game/system can handle?</I><BR><BR>For me, it's a simple question of economy. Much as I like Paizo's world building, it's not so much better than my own that I'm going to pay the prices they're asking for the privilege of having to rewrite the mechanics and pare down the details they give me to something more manageable and in tune with my refereeing style. I like having the room to wing it and make up my own details. If I like to do that, all that extra detail in <I>Pathfinder</I> is wasted on me.<br /><br />The whole point of pre-made adventure modules is their ease of use. I simply don't find <I>Pathfinder</I> easy to use, particularly because they're so information-dense that I'd have to spend time I'd rather use otherwise to prep the module. If that works for you or others, great, but it doesn't for me.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-37090623772957372142009-04-19T17:39:00.000-04:002009-04-19T17:39:00.000-04:00Will said:
The fundamental premise that mixing in...Will said:<br /><br /><I>The fundamental premise that mixing in elements of WotC's terrible designs with classic D&D can result in anything other than a greater or lesser degree of unfortunate pollution is at fault.</I>Now, I'll admit I'm not a proper retro-gamer (in fact, I'm still having quite a bit of fun with 3.X, even at the terrible heights of level 21 ;-) ) but I find this a bit hard to grasp as a serious argument. I can appreciate not liking later editions, but the notion that they're like some sort of cancer when pumped into (O/B/A)D&D's body seems a bit unfair.<br /><br />I mean, I'll admit that C&C has an issue with identity in that it's too 1E for some and too 3E for others; the later retro-clones have adopted a line far closer to the original ruleset and all it's pros & cons, which is arguably more what people were actually after. (I'd rather run OSRIC or S&W if I was in a retro mood, certainly, since they capture their games pretty well even when they differ: assuming I wasn't just using my 1E or OD&D books.)<br /><br />But the notion that's there's nothing to learn from later games (and specifically WotC) seems a bit of an unhealthy attitude for people to take. I mean, sure, certain things go against the grain: but I'm curious as to how someone can seriously say that there's nothing to be gained by, say, C&C's attempt at a unified mechanic in the SIEGE engine or the basic principle behind monster template design in 3E or 4E.<br /><br />I can get not liking what Wizards D&D is; I can't get being so reluctant to nick from it, since deep down, isn't that the heart of retro-gaming? Emulating and improving aspects from other games out there to see how it goes?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-29198410900000421452009-04-19T16:02:00.000-04:002009-04-19T16:02:00.000-04:00"Why do you place an upper limit on the amount of ..."Why do you place an upper limit on the amount of world detail your game/system can handle?" -- As for myself, I would answer that we live in the days of Information Overload from the Internet. Getting information is no longer the problem; the problem is finding the <EM>relevant</EM> information. I often feel like I'm drowning in the text. I would like to prepare 20 minutes for the next game, but I have 30 pages to skim. I have 15 plot elements described, but I need to remember the four that I will actually use. Filtering is taking away from time I could be spending with my wife, so to speak.Alex Schroederhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17104864340940538702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-66439031940598273882009-04-19T15:38:00.000-04:002009-04-19T15:38:00.000-04:00Goddamn Blogger text-mangling harrumph.Goddamn Blogger text-mangling harrumph.Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215651059418273961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-11300375056622951632009-04-19T15:37:00.000-04:002009-04-19T15:37:00.000-04:00I just regret the fact that they're producing a lo...<EM>I just regret the fact that they're producing a lot of great gaming material that shows a knowledge of and respect for the game's roots and it's wrapped in a rules set I just can't stomach any longer.</EM>But what difference does it make which system these supplements are built for? You talk about how natural the monster- and encounter- and area-design systems are for old-school systems; I think you're rhetorically overcompensating, but if the combat mechanics and implicit ecologies or your favourite old-fashioned RPGs are built for flexibility, what's stopping you adapting this Paizo flavour rather than cooking up your own flavour?<br /><br />(That is, if you actually like the flavour.)<br /><br />4e is built <EM>specifically to encourage conversion and adaptation</EM>. Its design and presentation make that obvious: from the paper-thin default world to extensive coverage of creature/power design and modding in the DMG, to the clear consistent (and predictable-for-the-DM!) subsystems for improvised actions and creature/NPC modification and creation.<br /><br />Creating a monster in 4e takes minutes; modding one takes seconds. Given strong flavour from elsewhere, it's really easy to put together combat/behaviour mechanics - and there's a system for checking whether the resulting monster is in line with level/role expectations.<br /><br />You claim - correctly or not - that your favoured systems are equally flexible <EM>and equally rich</EM>. Why not back up your claim with a little 'simple' conversion work?<br /><br />And then: what possible reason could you have for rejecting this material as 'too detailed'? Just chuck the stuff you don't like - which you'd do anyway, assuming you're not a drooling fundamentalist of the 'Gygaxian inerrancy' school (I know you ain't). Hell, chuck the new mechanics entirely and use your simple monster-creation system to fit reasonable creature-mechanics to the rich Pathfinder flavour.<br /><br />What's so difficult about that? If the world is interesting, a less-detailed version of it will still be interesting. Why do you place an upper limit on the amount of world detail your game/system can handle?Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215651059418273961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-16469106490661958312009-04-19T09:40:00.000-04:002009-04-19T09:40:00.000-04:00These Pathfinder books are not designed to be stan...<I>These Pathfinder books are not designed to be stand-alone, (though they can be run that way)but acts in a campaign.</I>That's part of my problem with the Adventure Path format, though. I think, as presented, <I>Pathfinder</I> is too tightly written. To get maximal use out of its adventures, you're talking about buying 6 $19.95 products and that just doesn't interest me. By comparison, it was quite possible to use the individual adventures of the Giants/Drow series without having to commit to using all of them.<br /><br />I'll admit that I'm just not a big fan of the Adventure Path as a format, so perhaps I can't look objectively at it. That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with saying, "This format does nothing for me and in fact ensures I will never buy any future issues of <I>Pathfinder</I>." I'm a little disappointed by that, because these are clearly lovingly made products and the Paizo crew are awesome. However, they don't mesh well with my preferences and I can't justify the expense of buying them.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-78901174790404533822009-04-19T09:25:00.000-04:002009-04-19T09:25:00.000-04:00"One of my beefs with this issue of Pathfinde..."One of my beefs with this issue of Pathfinder is the depth of the information it provides to frame the adventure. "<br /><br />We're not saying your nitpicking James. You just did the equivalent of reviewing 'Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets' without ever reading 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone'.<br /><br />These Pathfinder books are not designed to be stand-alone, (though they can be run that way)but acts in a campaign. Book 19 is the start of the story & campaign.<br /><br />If you have some time, pick up a copy of #19, read through it and then go back to #20. #20 will go from "eh..ok" to "Great".Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269064826505503551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-62854796106649393802009-04-18T20:40:00.000-04:002009-04-18T20:40:00.000-04:00But listening to the complaint of "depth of inform...<I>But listening to the complaint of "depth of information" just doesnt sit well.</I><BR><BR>And yet several people in these comments have already noted they know exactly what I meant by that and share my opinion. <br /><br />You will notice I didn't say I thought <I>Pathfinder</I> was a terrible thing or that people who liked its approach were terrible people. Indeed, I went out of my way to note my liking and respect for Paizo and what it does and that I found some worthy things in this issue. <br /><br />Why it's "nitpicking" to say any of this is beyond me.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-17859802287239052882009-04-18T20:28:00.000-04:002009-04-18T20:28:00.000-04:00*shrug* It sounds like your nitpicking to be hones...*shrug* It sounds like your nitpicking to be honest.<br /><br />Whether you like the mechnics or stat blocks is really taste.<br /><br />But listening to the complaint of "depth of information" just doesnt sit well. While I have a ton of old school 1st modules, frankly some of the rationel or even whats going on was thin at best or silly/irratonal at worst.<br /><br />I like the story that flows feeling. Information on why people do what they do. Even if I never use the AP, the continuality is nice and having a story to read is a bonus.carmachuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06037584604296331790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-41824934544461501932009-04-18T16:23:00.000-04:002009-04-18T16:23:00.000-04:00I love the Grogardia site, but my love of 3.5 is g...<I>I love the Grogardia site, but my love of 3.5 is greater. :)</I>And there's nothing wrong with that. I wish more people understood that 90% of my complaints about things represent my own personal feelings on the matter rather than any kind of transcendental truth that all must accept or be damned for all time in my eyes. It's always good to see when people whose tastes and opinions differ from my own can still get some use out of my blatherings. Thanks.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-57377505382412748482009-04-18T16:22:00.000-04:002009-04-18T16:22:00.000-04:00But yeah, I eventually got tired of the hugely ext...<I>But yeah, I eventually got tired of the hugely extensive descriptions.</I><BR><BR>Maybe that's something their customers really want, I don't know, but it's a big turn-off for me. The world they've constructed, Golarion, is extremely well-done and the many homages to <I>D&D</I>'s past and to pulp fantasy classics warm my cranky heart. But I just can't bring myself to drop so much money on the support materials, when more than half of it is something I don't want or will never use.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-80413111511243963572009-04-18T16:19:00.000-04:002009-04-18T16:19:00.000-04:00I'd love to see a Paizo retro-game, but I have a f...<I>I'd love to see a Paizo retro-game, but I have a feeling that it wouldn't satisfy the true believers no matter what.</I><BR><BR>Probably not -- and that's OK. I imagine Paizo knows their fan base better than I do. I just regret the fact that they're producing a lot of great gaming material that shows a knowledge of and respect for the game's roots and it's wrapped in a rules set I just can't stomach any longer.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-41640804169488836452009-04-18T16:17:00.000-04:002009-04-18T16:17:00.000-04:00To me, a dislike for other rules formats equals a ...<I>To me, a dislike for other rules formats equals a stagnation of the gaming hobby as a whole.</I><BR><BR>Care to elaborate?James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-69774111107505011592009-04-18T05:51:00.000-04:002009-04-18T05:51:00.000-04:00I downloaded a copy of S&W, I'll give it a...I downloaded a copy of S&W, I'll give it a read.<br /><br />But I was vastly disappointed with C&C. I bought a copy, read it and promptly traded it in so I could order a 3.5 book. It was wonderfully 'old school'. And I discovered that I don't much like that style of play any longer.<br /><br />I have found a version of 3.5 that is quite a bit 'lighter' though, Everstone: Blood Legacy. <br /><br />I love the Grogardia site, but my love of 3.5 is greater. :)Tetsubohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00339621610619347842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-16241188226393253572009-04-17T20:27:00.000-04:002009-04-17T20:27:00.000-04:00Forgive me if I'm carpetbagging. I put up a blog ...Forgive me if I'm carpetbagging. I put up a blog about my thoughts on Pathfinder as well.<br /><br />http://jdh417.blogspot.com/2009/04/trouble-with-pathfinder.htmljdh417https://www.blogger.com/profile/14541882649762424101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-75949606843205801082009-04-17T18:25:00.000-04:002009-04-17T18:25:00.000-04:00Jay, no problem. I quite fancy picking up a set my...Jay, no problem. I quite fancy picking up a set myself. ;)thekelvingreenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01928260185408072124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-65118898527617940932009-04-17T18:03:00.000-04:002009-04-17T18:03:00.000-04:00C&C + Paizo...wow, that's a neat idea. Nev...C&C + Paizo...wow, that's a neat idea. Never happen, but still, there's so much creativity on both sides that it would nearly HAVE to be a win win situation.<br /><br />I really liked the first few issues of Pathfinder myself. In fact, I ran the very first one under C&C. I just LOVED the way they portrayed goblins in that issue. But yeah, I eventually got tired of the hugely extensive descriptions.Gamer Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05006232842482959060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-42775907396474547632009-04-17T17:30:00.000-04:002009-04-17T17:30:00.000-04:00I find myself reading through the first two Pathfi...I find myself reading through the first two Pathfiner sets (on pdf) wishing that we had stuff like that back in the day of 1E. Imagine some of the settings/plotlines with about half of the bloat hacked out and compatiable with AD&D. Too bad. <br /><br />I've found some uses for the material, though (it's really beautifully presented, IMO) by pulling out individiual scenarios. I'm converting the Stone Giant Fortress (Runelords Book Four, I believe, and written by Wolfgang Baur) for my own game. It's really easy once you start tossing all the stat blocks and such and get right down to the meat of the material. <br /><br />I'd love to see a Paizo retro-game, but I have a feeling that it wouldn't satisfy the true believers no matter what.Badmikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06199830751033032585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-66202315561695962572009-04-17T16:56:00.000-04:002009-04-17T16:56:00.000-04:00Kelvin, +1! Thank you!Kelvin, +1! Thank you!Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07997164906328234122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-86498574591351875322009-04-17T16:49:00.000-04:002009-04-17T16:49:00.000-04:00Now, if only they still sold the dice you have to ...<I>Now, if only they still sold the dice you have to color in with crayons....</I><A HREF="http://www.gamescience.com/9001-9036.jpg/9001-9036-full;init:.jpg" REL="nofollow">They do</A>!thekelvingreenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01928260185408072124noreply@blogger.com