Thursday, January 16, 2025

Pathfinder 2, part 2

I still like the game; the company is handling this terribly.

Ugh, what a disaster.

Some progressive companies do it right; they don't feed into division and anger. They keep the door open for everyone to join the table and share ideas - this is how minds change and discussions begin. Good people and great ideas will win in the end.

Other companies are ticking time bombs, and this applies to both sides. They lack the discipline to put the customer first. They go off the cuff and "say stuff" to be popular. We saw this with Wizards many times, and it was almost weekly. I am rethinking my support of these companies since it is only a matter of time before they blow it.

These games by teams like this aren't worth supporting since you will regret sinking money into them. Sooner or later, something will be said, and the games will be put in the garage. They will end up being a waste of money and time.

Paizo's designer engaged in gatekeeping, which should never be okay. You can't say, "Gatekeeping is terrible," then turn around and do it yourself. I know it was the silly season of an election, but still, when you are on a team, you need to step up and show that discipline. The company's messaging is a mess and all over the place. This is another example of their lack of discipline. They are falling down trying to respond.

Look at the NFL; teams that lack discipline blow it and fall apart in the playoffs. The season is over, and I don't care how many games you have won during the regular season. You blew it.

Shadowdark is an excellent example of how to do business. They are also a reasonably progressive team, but one of their core values is keeping the game open for everyone and not closing doors or inviting political discussion into their community. They show a lot of respect to the creators of the hobby and the original ways we played the game back then.

The amount of discipline the Shadowdark team has amazes me in this day and age. They have their stuff together. They can control messaging and tone. They want to be a space people can escape to, so we can all game together and find an escape in a world where there is often no escape from the current thing.

They are the NFL team that has their act together.

Despite being an old-school gamer, I am still reasonably open-minded about many things. And here's the thing: the people with the best ideas will win the discussion. Why do we want to wall our tables off and only invite people who think one way? Don't we want a chance to have that discussion and convince others to have open minds and see things in other ways?

That may not be possible anymore.

The hobby as a social function may be dead.

Paizo's missteps only confirm what we already know.

Play dead, niche, and more minor games from teams with the discipline to deliver.

These mass market games?

Mistakes waiting to happen.

Wednesday, January 15, 2025

Pathfinder 2

Recently, some dumb things were said by the game's designer.

The tweet was taken down.

I am not quitting the game or putting this in storage, but the entire episode is disappointing. There is very little respect or self-control on social media. Every moment like this is fuel for the fire and a reason for the other side to go on a tirade. The wounds here are self-inflicted.

Pathfinder 2 is a great game. A considerable team put a lot of work into this. Episodes like this, where the already small and fragile community is divided again, hurt the games we love. I am still keeping my Paizo subscriptions. I will give them a while and see what happens. In a year, I will reconsider.

Shadowdark manages to walk the line in the current year just fine. The meek shall inherit the Earth, and they shall inherit gaming. Shadowdark is the better game. Everyone can play. This "be a good person" culture is part of the Shadowdark community.

This game is one of the few exceptions in the modern era of gaming.

How are we supposed to talk with each other and change the minds of others if we can't even sit at the same gaming table?

And my thoughts go back to D&D 3.5. Nobody cares to gatekeep a dead game. Perhaps D&D 3.5E is superior to Pathfinder 2 for this one reason alone.

There comes a point when I am so sick of "current year stupid" that I cease to care about the hobby at all. This hobby is so infected and diseased that every new book published today is suspect. They will let you down. Someone will say something. The culture vultures will descend from both sides. You will be forced to pick a side and be labeled something.

Current-day gaming is mostly a trap.

Stay away from it.

Play dead games.

Or the very few that keep their tables open to all.

Saturday, January 11, 2025

The Sad State of HR-Mandated Gaming

The coverage has turned against D&D, and the tide is going out. D&D YouTube is now defending the game, indicating everyone knows that views and popularity are dropping. The five-year fad, "Pandemic D&D," has run its course, and gaming is moving on.

But what we are left with is a complete mess.

The last people left on the sinking ship playing the game argue "how to play it" instead of just playing. The companies making the game feel a new edition is needed, telling you "what is right and wrong."

Any creator telling me, "I am doing it wrong?" - unsubscribe! Sorry, I know how to play these games, and whatever this is feeds into negativity.

I'm sorry, and I don't care; your books are getting sold or tossed in the recycling bin. There are enough petty dictators on social media spreading shame and anger; that era is over, too. Both sides do it, and I don't have the time to worry about "how a game is played."

When I can be playing it.

The hardest part of playing D&D is not learning the rules but knowing how to avoid offending people. Getting your feelings hurt replaced character death as the way to lose the game. To play D&D, I now need to learn the game and the attached list of political and cultural "do's and don'ts," which have now been codified as rules in the game.

It feels like playing Diablo 4, killing a monster the game presents as a legitimate foe, and being forced to click through 50 dialog boxes, video essays, and quizzes on why your actions were wrong and insensitive just so you can keep playing.

The HR departments of corporate America have invaded our games, and they all suck now.

Because everyone at these companies must watch these HR-mandated workplace sensitivity workshops, we now see those same things written into our games. It is like the employees are punishing the customers because they can't say no to management. It is likely "sick company syndrome." The shops with their "stuff together" don't feel they have to ship HR-mandated sensitivity content to punish customers for wrong-think.

News flash, you can work at a company producing "potentially insensitive content" and still treat each other in the workplace respectfully and decently. What goes out the door is a different thing. A company can ship a game like Cyberpunk 2077 with all sorts of offensive content yet still be an inclusive and progressive workplace that doesn't reflect what it shipped as an entertainment product.

I am all for excellent, inclusive, respectful, and sensitive workplaces. I am all for HR departments that make workplaces better. Great workplace cultures keep the best people.

But there is a line drawn at the front door.

Watch out for end-stage companies trying to "sell their values" instead of "a product you want."

You are being guilted into supporting a fading brand.

Thursday, January 9, 2025

The Checks Didn't Clear?

And just like that, D&D YouTube is nearly dead.

I wonder if the money being paid by companies pushing D&D to up-rank D&D YouTube channels hasn't run out. YouTube asks these creators, "Got an idea for another channel?"

Was D&D YouTube's "popularity" artificial? Was it all just paid corporate ranking? Were all those creators, often putting in long hours, being "paid" pennies by the hour to push a game, just free advertising for Wall Street companies?

You must ask yourself, "Is being an unpaid content creator even a worthwhile investment of time?" YouTube will pull the plug on an entire community; that is it—lights out. Please make a new channel covering the next thing Wall Street wants to be popular.

Is Marvel Rivals popular? Bey-Blade? Go make videos for that. On a side note, I think Marvel Rivals is killing interest in D&D right now. The next colossal fad has arrived.

D&D may be dying in its 2014-2024 5E lifecycle.

Live by the d8 longsword, die by the d4 hit die.

I really don't know what to say. The easy money is gone. I am sorry to see many of them leave, but I am happy the abusive reliance on a big tech company is finally ending.

You are free now.

Many of you are talented creators, and you have the drive and talent to succeed outside of the D&D space. Those who transform themselves entirely and re-compose that existing audience into something new and not D&D-related may be the ones who emerge from this rebirth.

And, likely, for the better.

If you are still in the tabletop space, prepare for some hard work. Leave the platform, go to another site, and build an audience that will not be taken away from you. Play a game from a hungry team that cares about its community. You must make a loyal audience, one subscriber at a time.

Tuesday, January 7, 2025

Influencer Culture

I get the feeling Wizards pays YouTube to drown out every alternative gaming video to D&D, and thus, this paid influencer culture on that site keeps thriving and spreading like a colony of mold. I see some very nice coverage of Pathfinder 2, but most D&D channels have crawled back into the cave, and all I see are D&D videos.

And I saw videos there that said, "D&D gets so many more views! Thus, no other game is worth covering!"

Also, recently, "The mainstream media is attacking D&D! We have to protect D&D!"

When the recommended video push cash runs out, we will have a better view of the actual market. Money is being burned to keep the hot air flowing into the balloon. I don't see YouTube as a truthful indicator of what's popular other than the fact that paying them tips the scales, and we know nothing about what game would be the most popular if that money were gone.

There is a lot of coverage; in reality, VTT numbers better indicate what is being played and popular. It is still D&D, but it isn't as lopsided as YouTube would have you believe. Call of Cthulhu is the 2nd most popular tabletop game (by VTT rankings), but I see fewer videos than GURPS videos, so YouTube as a "reality metric" is heavily biased and skewed.

I am unsubscribing from my D&D influencer channels because of their constant noise. Every week, it is Wizards drama, or even the lack of drama is drama, and I just get the feeling the entire D&D influencer culture is getting desperate again. Can we cover something else in 5E YouTube besides optimization guides, tier rankings, and drama? Maybe review adventures? Do inspiration or lore discussion? World building?

All those "class tier lists" that D&D influencers make mean nothing if nobody loses the game. What does it matter how high my DPT is when no character dies? I can pick D or F-tier classes, spells, and gear and still win the game. Nothing matters. Even if most of the party is sub-optimal, chances are there will be a few hardcore optimizers at the table, and what you do won't matter much anyway.

In fact, picking bad choices may make the game more challenging and fun for the rest of the table.

I get it; even the channel owners who are honest about their views and share the data say the drama receives ten times more views than "useful game content." There comes a point when "useless information is useless," and I no longer care about the drama and hype. I don't care about ranking charts for games I don't play. Whatever dumb thing Wizards does next is the next dumb thing I don't care about, nor do I want to invest any time in my life caring about dumb things Wall Street companies do.

Why is everyone wasting their time?

Oh, clicks equal money.

Some creators have been mocking the clickbait titles, which is probably healthy. However, I have lost interest even in the situation's humor. It is all noise. I would prefer to create and play rather than engage in this endless, pointless, circular discussion. There was a point of 5E videos with mild interest, then cuteness, disinterest, and now aversion.

Blogs died 15 years ago, and ad money can't be applied to blogs anymore. I am not an influencer of anybody, nor do I get money for views. I keep this blog up out of my love for blogs like the classic Grognardia, an excellent endless stream of thoughts and experiences that inspired me to start this one.

Even my thoughts shift and change, and I rediscover games I had put in my garage and try them again. I gave Pathfinder 2 a lot of heat for the first books of the second edition, and the tone of their world is off some of the games I like. There is too much technology in some books. The game was challenging for me to learn since the books I got for it were too big, had too many classes, and had too much stuff in them. I bounced right off and could never grasp the system to the point I was comfortable with it.

I swear that someday, I will make yes/no checklists for these books as a "campaign crafting guide" just so I can better organize my thoughts and have something I can hand players to say, "This is in, and that is out."

Yet, here I am again with the remaster, giving it another try. The remaster is ten times better without the OGL and SRD content, and we finally have a game that fits the fantasy theme but has new stuff in it. The ideas are fresh. The new monsters we have not seen before. The spells are different.

I give it another try since I am fair, and people are having fun with this. I need to see if I can, too.

Don't listen to people who say the remaster books aren't needed. They are the better and more focused game.

Every game that dumped the OGL and SRD has gotten better. From Castles & Crusades to ACKS II, the designers are forced to show us "their ideas," suddenly, the game isn't "D&D with alternative rules." When I have SRD stuff, I default to it because I am lazy. Oh, hey, here is, uh ...the green dragon! Yeah, that green dragon. With the new monsters and breaking of the SRD, I am reading the new monsters and liking them better. The door is open for me to make my own. The players' expectations and assumptions about the world are broken.

What is out there?

We don't know.

They said a dragon was in the hills; what type do you think it is?

I have no idea. This world isn't SRD. For all we know, it could be a death's head dragon, and who knows what that does?

All of a sudden, I feel a sense of dread and fear. Even though Pathfinder 2 is a new-school game, that feeling of fear and dread is very old-school. Also, it is possible for characters to TPK and die in Pathfinder 2, which makes it an actual roleplaying game instead of play-acting rules.

The remastered books are also better for your own campaign worlds. The Core Player's book does not include GM information or a world guide. It is just a player's book. This empowers me to fix the campaign world and adopt more old-school "settings" to fix the world to my liking. I could do that with the earlier books, but not if the game was such a beast to learn I did not even want to start.

Sunday, January 5, 2025

D&D 3.5E: A Secret Club

The D&D 3.5E community is full of deep, labyrinthine, twisting rabbit holes. I get the feeling most of the hardcore 3.5E players want people to play other games, such as Pathfinder 2E and 5E. Just stay out of this amazing place, a secret club of those of us whole knew the time, knew the spirit of the game when this was created, and the confusing and overly complicated rules of D&D 3.5E serve to keep the idiots out.

And this is a cool place.

Even Pathfinder 1e seems sterilized and overly clean compare to this edition. Yes, Paizo used a lot of sex and edgy content to sell their game, but looking closer, they cleaned a lot of the edgier, more controversial, more taboo elements of 3.5E up. Pathfinder 1e feels remarkably mainstream compared to the original D&D 3.5E books, especially with what was done in the "evil" books in the system.

D&D 3.5E went to some dark places.

I found some of the original OGL sources that the Pathfinder 1e lore pulled from, and they cleaned a lot up, broke things up, sanitized the more abhorrent subjects, broke up key NPCs, and put everything that were in those system-neutral OGL books into little places in Golarion so they could own a version of them, and by default, own the idea.

There are two demons in the Book of Fiends (2003), by Green Ronin, Socothbenoth and his sister Nocticula, who are into all sorts of depraved things, and always at each other's side in their plane of Hell. When we meet him again in Pathfinder 1e's Book of the Damned (2017), they break the two apart, make them enemies, and link them tightly to the Golarion cosmology. Yes, they have an interesting story now, but I somehow feel they have been cleaned-up and co-opted. They get some amazing artwork, but they feel they have lost their edge and cool factor after they left D&D 3.5E.

These weren't official demons in the Wizards world, but they were resurrected for Pathfinder 1e, and seem to have lost what made them cool. Of course, these were pulled in by the OGL, so it is likely they are not even in the official canon anymore. I liked who they were, an almost wicked, evil, twisted version of "Team Rocket" that could show up and raise hell. Who they became in Pathfinder 1e felt like they were just another OGL thing ported into the massive gravitational pull of Paizo, cleaned up, and shoved somewhere in a junk drawer.

It was nice to see them again, but they had become gentrified and placed into Golarion. I preferred their original, put them in any world, raw and uncut versions.

Part of this is Paizo changing and becoming more progressive by 2017. The original 2003 source was written during different era, much more raw, explicit, and unfiltered. All of D&D 3.5E is like that, you will come across things that make you do a double-take; and in Pathfinder 1e, besides the occasional cheesecake picture (which are all gone these days), what we get is a safer version of what we had in D&D 3.5E.

And having these figures of ultimate evil is what D&D is all about. Even D&D 4E felt sanitized and cleaned up, like in the 2010s everyone changed, and the concept that there could be absolute evil in a fantasy world was done away with. Even in the 2017 Paizo book, the evil figures don't seem to be as truly evil as they once were, but just Skeletor-like cackling evildoers who have some redeeming qualities. They are too cool to be depraved and wicked at heart.

D&D 3.5E came from a different world, just pick up any videogame magazine between 2003 and 2008 and you will see where this came from. There are absolutes in this world, like every humanoid race being evil, worshipping demons, have their bodies twisted by dark magics, and being in perpetual war with the forces of good. It was more like Warhammer Fantasy, and less like Harry Potter and Cartoon Network.

Yes, parts of D&D 3.5E are horribly broken, complicated, and overly complex. The fights take forever. There are so many things which connect with other things.

But the game is a zenith of the era, and the scion of our time back then. It is the last bastion of D&D where evil was evil. Nothing was redefined and recontextualized for the audience. We didn't need filters. We didn't need some social theory ported into the game to prove a point, rally people to white knight behind, or make people angry for clicks. Social media? What's that?

We were all mature enough to handle it, having lived through 9/11 and seeing what true evil was, and what it did to the innocent. We earned the right to write and play this game, and to express ourselves freely and without fear. We were living in a world of good versus evil.

We were the good guys.

At least, until the unjustified wars broke out. Then we became the bad guys. We saw our games change from epic, brutal, difficult, and unfiltered expressions of our generation - to easy, gimme, overpowered, die-rolling daycare. Pathfinder 1e, D&D 4E, and D&D 5E were all colored-over, filtered, cleaned-up, and socially acceptable versions of the something raw and primal we had back then. Pathfinder 1e was the slow-drip of morphine that dulled our senses of the brutality and brilliance of D&D 3.5E.

Sorcerers and wizards had a d4 hit die. Rogues and bards had a d6. They were classes that died easy. This is D&D, not some overpowered pander game that gives you dozens of hit points at level one. In Pathfinder, nobody goes below a d6. This die-step adds up, and causes hit-point inflation. Combats will take longer, and damages need to start creeping up.

If somebody doesn't have a d4 hit die, it is not D&D.

The rules were complex. If you want to be in this hobby and play at a high level, you put in the time to learn and understand the rules. The game wasn't for everybody, nor was it designed to be. Being difficult meant that only the great players stuck around, and those were worth spending time with anyway. The rules were the gatekeepers, and this was a good thing. They were a built-in test of dedication and commitment. If you had the patience and dedication to learn how to play D & D 3.5E at a high level, then you could be reasonably counted on to show up every week to play.

You still see the same thing today in high-end MMO raiding or online FPS games. There is so much to learn; if you are not going to put in the time, don't be expected to be invited into the groups that play at that level. It isn't unfair; they put in the time, learned the high-end raids and FPS strategies, learned teamwork, and spent hundreds of hours perfecting what they do. Those expecting to waltz in knowing nothing won't stay around for long.

It isn't elitism or gatekeeping. It is expecting people to put in the time and learn. The great groups that replenish and last will take a little time to teach the new people. If I spend the time to play at an elite level, I expect everyone else to do the same. And I would teach others, too, to give them a chance. It is up to them to take it, and put in the work. Even knowing how to DM the game, avoid the broken parts, and know the exploits was a masterclass of knowledge and experience.

Even AD&D and AD&D 2e were not this deep, nor did they have this mastery built-in as deep as D&D 3.5E. This was a game designer by the original Magic: the Gathering designers, and they knew how to design a game to build system mastery into the entire product. This created an elite community of expert players and DMs. You sought these people out. This was their magnum opus, taking MtG, and turning into D&D, the game they destroyed in the 90s.

With Pathfinder, the streamlining and ease of play allowed more casuals in the door. Every edition of fantasy gaming has gotten worse since then; it is easier to play, more casual, not as deadly, and requires less commitment.

Also, like every version of Wizards D&D, level 10 and up never worked right. I don't know what it is—maybe they don't want to pay play testers or listen to feedback—but for 25 years, Wizards has never been able to deliver a balanced high-level game in any version of D&D—3.0, 3.5, 4, 5, and now 5.5.

If it is Wizard's D&D, high-level play will be broken. Live-patch things and get your ban lists ready. If something starts to get stupid, fix it with your players. Be mature.

There is a massive difference between optimized and non-optimized characters, and casters take over the game at level 10 and higher with minion spamming. But, if every version of Wizards D&D is horribly broken at the high levels, at least this one is less censored and silly than the versions we have today. It sets a low bar, but, hey, Wizards D&D has always sucked at high-level play.

Playing to level ten and quitting is always the best option for D&D. Pathfinder 2 is better for high-level campaigns since it was tested extensively.

Friday, January 3, 2025

OSRIC vs. DCC

Dungeon Crawl Classics is an all-time classic and an A-tier game for me. I love the emergent gameplay and iconic classes. It is a modded 3.5E-style game and, for me, a drop-in replacement for all of D&D 3.5E that does away with all the overpowered builds of that game but retains the over-the-top outcomes.

The game was created as a reaction to the hobby's drift away from Appendix N sources and seeks to model an experience based on those books. It is a reaction to Wizard's mainstreaming of D&D from version three to today. The hobby has gotten so used to superheroes as a fantasy that we forget what made the hobby strange and extraordinary.

OSRIC is the best version of first-edition gaming. It includes all the strange and arcane limitations, ability score requirements, level limits, low ability score modifiers, and that "flat and dry" feeling that old-school games need. Too many games these days are "pander and gimme" games, where they give everyone ability score modifiers; things are far too simple, and you are given everything and expect even more.

In this game, your ranger's to-hit is what it is, you have no hit or damage modifier, and your AC is okay. Then, you decide if you want to open that next door. You don't get "free XP" for quest completion; killing monsters is a secondary source, and gold is the primary. If a referee wants to give out "quest XP" for destroying an abandoned fort housing orcs, the referee should say, "A nearby town puts an 8,000gp bounty on the destruction of the fort and all inside." When the deed is done, the town pays up, and the party splits it and anything they found inside as their reward and experience.

There are your "quest XP."

What do you spend money on? You can't buy magic items, but you can purchase retainers and upgrade fortifications. The only weak part of OSRIC is the stronghold rules, but there are so many games (and 3rd party books) that cover this, and you can always borrow one you like. The Into the Wild Omnibus has a sound system for domain management with costs, and this works well. Also, training for the next level costs gold; you must find a trainer or work this out with the referee.

Going back to DCC, I love this game for all the crazy stuff that happens, but a part of me wonders, "How did we get here?" We got here because a generation of gamers forgot what the first edition was all about. In first-edition games, if something strange was on the wall of a dungeon, nobody knew what it was unless they pushed, prodded, examined, and used a few spells to figure it out. Nobody knew all the monsters, and the referee was free to reskin and add abilities to the existing ones, creating entirely new monsters for their games.

You could not rely on rules, books, bestiaries, spell lists, or anything else as "reliable information."

Everything can be changed. This is rule zero.

Today's games rely on rules on certainty, fairness, sound options, and predictable character builds. Everyone, even the referee, should follow the rules. DCC comes along and tells you, "You can do this!" It gives you charts with hundreds of silly and unexpected results.

In OSRIC, it doesn't even need to be said. The game is not whacky and crazy, nor over the top or insanely silly. It can be played seriously or over the top; there are no rules for this, nor are there table results telling you, "You can!" This is greater freedom than DCC, as you are not opening a book and finding a table result to justify your creative urges. I love DCC since it opens my mind, but my mind opens far broader than that.

It happens if something happens to a character that gives them a permanent adjustment. I don't need a chart, table result, or something in the game which allows me to. This happens in DCC, but in OSRIC, it isn't said, so it is the rule.

AD&D 2nd Edition started the slide, and D&D 3.0 accelerated the decline. We are lost in a sea of rules, rulings, and books telling us what we can or cannot do. Gaming has been destroyed by overruling and printing books for every subject and topic and turning them into mini-games inside the structures of more significant games.

DCC is both remarkable and utterly unnecessary. While excellent and mind-opening, the tables and charts can ultimately limit your imagination. Those tables and graphs are only needed because we lost our way and need rules to return to what we once had.

To be fair, DCC says you can do away with everything. Any result can be substituted for "one more fun." DCC is still one of my best games, and the dice alone are incredible.

Still, I remember the old days. We never needed any of this.

Also, the modern concept of "Quest XP" puts the referee in an unwanted role of "XP welfare" for "good deeds" when the original games did not have the concept of rewarding anyone for the referee or module writer's "pet stories." This began in AD&D 2nd Edition to support the fiction, and it was a corporate move to mainstream the game. In the first edition, the referee could award XP for anything, but the main driving force of advancement was written into the rules one way for a reason.

Where did characters get XP from?

Gold and defeating monsters.

Whose stories are we playing?

The players.

"Quest XP" is the behavioral modification and control of player actions. It tells players, "You will not advance in the game unless you jump through the hoops presented to you by the referee or module writer." In the first edition, you only advanced by killing and taking the loot. Your stories, and the stories of others, were backdrops and motivation, but no rewards were tied to them.

The first edition got it 100% right. This is where the slide and decline began, and how we got to today, when the entire game is presented as a behavioral modification.

DCC gives you the tools to break free.

OSRIC is where you escape to.