Read it here folks, and then discuss.. or even discuss over there is you like.

Link for ease of travel

Or here.. spoiler for keeping it short on return visits

Speaking as myself now.. wow.. this is thought provoking.

You know, having played a lot of MMO's myself, I wasn't quite seeing the connection that everyone else was pointing to, and yet there was something to it that I just couldn't put my finger on.

Chris' likening 4th Edition to a CCG without the collectible aspect suddenly crystalizes what I couldn't quite identify for myself.

Being a very rules neutral person, this has been one of the reports that has really given me pause in regards to 4th edition.

When you're an ex-diceless guy, fluff is everything, and 4th edition sounds like it might well be inimical to the old fashioned style campaign that I've come to love as Pathfinder.

Chris' likening 4th Edition to a CCG without the collectible aspect suddenly crystalizes what I couldn't quite identify for myself.

EDIT: Single biggest example I have why I feel that 4E is more like DDM then MtG. MtG has (or at least had) a blue deck option. Blue deck was the controller deck. You made your opponent spend cards to their trash so they'd run out of cards faster and lose, or make them put creatures back in their hand, so they'd have nothing to defense themselves with or steal your opponent's creatures or etc. There really isn't that kind of build in DDM, atleast not to a large extent. The Controller Role, from everything we've heard is artillery, not someone that can make like hell for the DM by charming monsters, dominating people to follow your will, moving their pieces around on the board, stealing their powers, etc.

Thank goodness someone intelligent, thoughtful, and respected wrote this...but why does everyone assume we'll all succumb?

I just deleted the pages long rant that went here...mainly because no one cares or I don't care if you do. You play your D&D and I'll play mine.

Anyway, I appreciate Chris' review because it is not glowingly positive and yet not negative either.

It's pretty clear that WotC realizes this, which explains why they felt the need to advance the timeline and have an apocalyptic event in the Forgotten Realms. I don't think many of the old campaign settings will transition over without a lot of cutting, spindling, and mutilating.

The roots of the new rules are not in MMOs at all, but collectible card games.

Great news for the 3.75ers

And Dithering...? Don't you take heart in that he feels a company could probably do well catering to those who chose not to succumb to this redefinition of the hobby?

Chris Pramas wrote:

It's pretty clear that WotC realizes this, which explains why they felt the need to advance the timeline and have an apocalyptic event in the Forgotten Realms. I don't think many of the old campaign settings will transition over without a lot of cutting, spindling, and mutilating.

Great news for the 3.75ers

The cutting, spindling, and mutilating of a certain campaign setting effects more then our game play, but our reading also. The Forgotten Realms is more then just a world some of us play in, it's a novel series we enjoy and this mutation directly effects the books.

Here's hoping for an eventual "Age of the Chosen" product like, similiar to how Dragonlance has 2 lines.

Whoever those are. Of the dozen people I know locally, besides myself, only 1 other is remotely interested in third party D20 options. Everyone is willing to stick with 3.5 or change over to 4.0 if it works. I myself would play a 3.75 option only because D20 rules are D20 rules and if a certain spin on those rules makes the game easier, I'll try them. However, I know any venture would be short lived since the campaign settings I like don't use said rules.

They're taking chainsaws to my childhood and Paizo is the shining knight.

Strange, I sort of reached the same conclusion about 4th edition feeling more like MtG myself over the weekend, after having read the rules primer, and several reviews from D&DXP (most of them neutral).

The feel I get from most of the folks in my area is one of reluctance: most don't want, or don't intend to change. There's a small group that's fairly enthusiastic about it (though many of them are moving next month). But most of the folks at my FLGS aren't enthusiastic about 4th, no one in my games are enthusiastic about it. This may very well change (I realize this) once the books are available.

Having no intention of switching, I'm primarily interested in what the GSL does, and what third party publishers intend to do. If the GSL is a bomb (so to speak) and many publishers decide not to switch, there may be a very decent chance that individuals that are luke-warm to 4th that want to keep playing 3.5 (or whatever) will support those companies whole heartedly. The question is, will there be enough? It's hard to say at this point. Nobody seen the GSL, and we've only seen a smattering of the rules.

Honestly, there is no better time for them to, they could literally steal away the D&D fanbase out from under WotC (or at least split it considerably).

(And I feel a tiny amount of "pride" at seeing that I'm not the only one who found many similarities between 4E and collectible card games.)

True 20 will be my 4th edition. I've never played CCGs and never will. No one in my gaming group has ever played CCGs. If that's what 4e is supposed to be, then there's another reason for not buying it.

Let me see....yeah, let's disenfranchise those stogey old 40 somethings who are now making more money than they ever have by turning their favorite childhood hobby into something totally alien to many of them.

Who needs the disposable hobby income of a family of gamers that makes more than $120,000 a year anyway?

Paizo? Yeah....

The only problem with Paizo (or anyone else for that matter) going against 4e is the influx of new gamers.

Yes, Paizo may have a solid group of stalwarts who stay 3.5 . . .but in 2-3-4 years they will likely be facing diminishing returns.

Essentially, what I am saying is this:

The danger of hitching your business to the current edition is you have a set # of people (most set in their ways and games) and that number is likely to be much more limited and much less likely to grow as quickly as 4e consumers.

I do not envy Paizo's choice.

I've never played CCGs. So the whole power options thing is new to me. I like it. Still have no plans to play CCGs.

Also Eberron and K. Baker fans, he has posted his thoughts on his blog. A link is on ENworld

Yeah it what I knew was going to happen, 4e has made a Mockery out of D&D. It's a Miniature Board game now...action packed... battle playset with a few books and different boards(Dungeons)

Yeah it what I knew was going to happen, 4e has made a Mockery out of D&D. It's a Miniature Board game now...action packed... battle playset with a few books and different boards(Dungeons)

Eventually they will succumb to the greed and brand mismanagment that the WoTC execs are all too guilty of.

Tim,

While I am in no position to argue that Paizo has created an intensely loyal fanbase with fairly deep pockets for gamers, I think there are two salient points:

1) The community here on the forums is a very vocal and loyal, however, it is but a slice of the entire pie. It must be for the Paizo boards still feel like a small town to me, I can recognize just about everyone . . .they are obviously drawing people from elsewhere with their products and it has yet to be seen where these people stand on 4e.

2) Does Paizo want to go toe to toe with WoTC/Hasbro. As Pramas said, WoTC has the $ to make 4e the most widely played RPG. Would it not be wise for Paizo to use all the skills and talents you so aptly named in pursuit of this much larger and faster growing audience. Also, wouldn't it be nice to not have to worry about the headache of marketing and actively seeking converts to their particular game system, when they can just focus on telling awesome stories that D&D players want?

The only problem with Paizo (or anyone else for that matter) going against 4e is the influx of new gamers.

At first it was just curiosity, I wanted to jump in on a new campaign setting as it was coming out; then I found out Paizo listens to their fanbase!. It was an amazing experience and I feel like Pathfinder is as much my own homebrew world as it is their's.

Everything I've seen from 4E flies in the face of the D&D traditions which Pathfinder seems focused on preserving, it just seems counter-productive for Paizo to make their jobs harder by going with the new system.

The Last Rogue wrote:

The only problem with Paizo (or anyone else for that matter) going against 4e is the influx of new gamers.

What makes you think Paizo can't attract new gamers? They've been doing a pretty damn good job of it so far methinks. I was never a Dungeon/Dragon subscriber, I picked up a few issues every now and then but held no Paizo loyalty whatsoever until Pathfinder started coming out.

At first it was just curiosity, I wanted to jump in on a new campaign setting as it was coming out; then I found out Paizo listens to their fanbase!. It was an amazing experience and I feel like Pathfinder is as much my own homebrew world as it is their's.

Everything I've seen from 4E flies in the face of the D&D traditions which Pathfinder seems focused on preserving, it just seems counter-productive for Paizo to make their jobs harder by going with the new system.

Of course Paizo can attract new customers. They attracted you and I and a host of others. BUT, that is because partially we were all* indoctrinated into 3.5 via WoTC. As you said, you happened to be looking for something within the realm of 3.5 (a Campaign Setting) and Paizo had it.

Listen, I will be one of the first ones up the mountain top to sing Paizo's praises, and I've made that clear here, on other boards, and during the chat . . . Paizo consistently blows me away

I am just thinking out loud, and while I back Paizo 100%, I just have a hard time believing that Paizo can rival the number of 4e players we will see in the coming years. There is something to be said for name brand regardless of quality**, and in our hobby DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is name brand, the name brand.

* all = many

** not an indication that I am expecting poor quality from 4e

I am just thinking out loud, and while I back Paizo 100%, I just have a hard time believing that Paizo can rival the number of 4e players we will see in the coming years.

But you do have to keep in mind that Paizo doesn't have to rival the number of 4th Edition players. They need a much smaller customer base to remain comfortable. I'd love to be able to say with certainty that they would get it without switching to 4th. But...

The Last Rogue wrote:

I am just thinking out loud, and while I back Paizo 100%, I just have a hard time believing that Paizo can rival the number of 4e players we will see in the coming years.

As much as I would like to prove you wrong, I just don't have the knowledge to do so.

But you do have to keep in mind that Paizo doesn't have to rival the number of 4th Edition players. They need a much smaller customer base to remain comfortable. I'd love to be able to say with certainty that they would get it without switching to 4th. But...

well, you see what I mean.

Of course, this is all conjecture and Paizo knows whats best for them.

And Dithering...? Don't you take heart in that he feels a company could probably do well catering to those who chose not to succumb to this redefinition of the hobby?

True 20 will be my 4th edition. I've never played CCGs and never will. No one in my gaming group has ever played CCGs. If that's what 4e is supposed to be, then there's another reason for not buying it.

Let me see....yeah, let's disenfranchise those stogey old 40 somethings who are now making more money than they ever have by turning their favorite childhood hobby into something totally alien to many of them.

Who needs the disposable hobby income of a family of gamers that makes more than $120,000 a year anyway?

Paizo? Yeah....

I think that paizo would be able to gain new players if they kept with the 3.5 edition model. I consider myself a serious gamer but I have never kept with one game system model for long. I started with FASERIP marvel super heros (still love it), moved to a D&D/AD&D hybrid, jumped on the 2nd edition D&D band wagon (no interest in going back), then would play only WoD for my entire college experience. Once 3rd edition came out I floated back into the D&D camp and a big reason for that was the OGL. As a gamer I like to play different games and try out/read different systems occasionally (even rifts god help me). I do not buy the "to be successful it must be D&D" logic though I will say that it is easier from a marketing standpoint to jump on Wizard's coattails and let them bring in the new blood. Even if Paizo is not 100% compatible with the new rules there will be a subset of the population always looking for something different and with good stories and quality like paizo has they will gain a share of that market.

I'm just waiting to see which of the rats leaves before the ship sinks. My money is on that Chris Tomasson characer who now calls himself Chris Young.

Anyone know why the guy changed his name?

Guys, I appreciate support and lord knows whatever we decide we're going to need a ton of it, but I respectfully ask you guys to draw the line at personal insults against WotC staffers, particularly ones that used to work at Paizo.

Chris Youngs is a good guy. Please don't insult him here.

Thanks.

Watcher wrote:

And Dithering...? Don't you take heart in that he feels a company could probably do well catering to those who chose not to succumb to this redefinition of the hobby?

Yes, as a publisher, I think this statement carries a lot of weight! I hope lots of old and new shops keep the faith. I throw as much money as I can at them and I advise people to vote with their dollars.

Same one you are. When I refer to talent I am speaking to the crappy art that fills most of the books WoTC has produced post core, the lousy writing, poor editing (I wonder if anyone over there uses spell check), poor product quality, and most importantly poor management.