|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Scott Betts wrote:
So a business shouldn't have the ability to determine who gets to distribute their product? That's wrong, to you?
That's extremely disingenuous of you. There's a big difference between "decide who distributes their products" and "make unavailable something that has already been paid for."
Furthermore, this is precisely the sort of argumentation for which you're constantly taking others to task.
Overall, I think WotC made some legitimately bad choices during the 4E era. Personally, I liked the rules, but they made it increasingly difficult to support them as a company through what I believe were increasingly customer-hostile actions.
As for 5E -- Once again I like the rules, but I harbor some doubts about WotC. I do think it is worth noting that many of the people behind D&D have changed, and so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt by assuming they have learned their lesson. However, the silence on PDFs and the OGL do not bode well.
I'm buying the 5E core. Beyond that? Wait and see.
It like this was made for you.
When I first paged through 4e at the book store it looked to me like a video game rather than an RPG.
Completely agree. Except for the lack of a controller, display, and graphics of any kind, it was just like a video game!
Pardon the sarcasm, but this little bit of edition warring needs to be taken out behind the chemical shed.
So I ran my first session of 5E over the weekend. We began the Starter Set adventure using the basic rules.
The game moved along well. We spend a total of five hours, which included character generation and dinner. During the ~3.5 hours we actually spent playing, we got through five combats and wrapped up the first section of the adventure. It reminded me of "reset" 3rd edition with many of the corner-case rules removed. I particularly liked the "hybrid" prepared/spontaneous spell-casting model shared by the cleric and the wizard. Someone at the table described it as a "D&D greatest hits," which I think was very appropriate.
We tried going map-less for a combat, but it just didn't feel quite right. Then we tried a grid with minis, and while that was close, it felt a bit "fiddly" for the rules-moderate nature of the game. We decided next time we're going to use minis and maps, but without a grid, and just measure distance with string. That should offer a visually appealing tactical representation without the restrictive feel of a grid. Since the rules don't assume a grid, it seems like the best balance. It also seems appropriate given D&D's war-game roots.
One thing I noticed was the need to read and re-read the basic rules. With several iterations of D&D and Pathfinder rattling around in my head, it was really tough to keep everything straight.
Naturally the lack of customization in the Basic Rules was very confining, but the experience left me really wanting to see the Player's Handbook. I still fear WotC is going to make bone-headed mistake at the last minute, but I'm excited in spite of myself: 5E might end up being close to my "ideal" D&D. If so, it will become my "go-to" game for fantasy role-playing, but it seems highly likely that I'll be sticking with Pathfinder for organized play unless most of my friends switch (thanks, network effects!).
I've been offered copies of Paizo PDFs with the watermarks removed on multiple occasions. I didn't accept. Not because I'm incorruptible or righteous, but because Paizo PDFs are legally available for a fair price, and I want to support the people that make them so they'll keep making them. On the other hand, refusing to offer legal PDFs hurts only customers, as those willing to pirate are not stymied. I had simply hoped that the powers that be at WotC would have figured this out by now. Heck, I had hoped that they'd have figured it out years ago.
In any event, even if all discussion of piracy related matters is forbidden, care should be taken before accusing people of advocating piracy (which no no one in this thread has done).
In short, I don't take well to being accused of things I haven't done. :-/
Charlie D. wrote:
Yes, but...my point is that the decision on PDFs should have already been a firm "of course."
Chuck Wright wrote:
I was having an interesting discussion. You don't have to click on the link, my friend.
I didn't click on the link. What I did do was get a hostile PM from someone in this thread ("intelligence is obviously your dump stat").
OVER A FREAKING GAME.
So while I'm glad you find it interesting, I'm tired of the edition war bickering. I'll leave you guys to it.
Scott Henry wrote:
I don't think Pathfinder 2E is going to be churned out as quickly as Hasbro is putting out new editions of D&D. lets hope 5th ed does a decent job.
And in my opinion, a new edition of Pathfinder can't come soon enough. Then again, I'm much less bothered by "edition-churn" than I am bloat. YMMV.
You seem to be taking a lot of this personally...it might help you to take a step back. RPGs aren't religions.
Scott Henry wrote:
Personally, I'd think long and hard before I started hurling accusations of D&D "stealing from Pathfinder."
As for the rest -- the basic rules are free. You will be able to use just those to play any of the published adventures. If you want to build your own stuff, you will probably want to pick-up a Monster Manual. Personally, I'm not seeing the angst here.
Scott Betts wrote:
In fairness, Scott, you could be talking about an entirely different group of people.
Well, that won't stop people, in particular the ones with a long-standing axe to grind with Paizo, to run around the Internet screaming "paid beta of PF 2.0 out next year - WotC did that to you with Bo9s and now Paizo is doing it again".
Uhm, I'd be delighted if it were that. Either way, I'll definitely be picking it up.
Furry Grognard wrote:
It currently appears to me like the kind of fantasy RPG one would cut their teeth on before advancing to the full suite of options and complexity many enjoy with Pathfinder.
Alternatively, it might be the kind of fantasy RPG one plays after advancing past the needless complexity of systems like Pathfinder.
Or maybe it isn't a question of being "advanced" at all, and just one of preference? ;)
Reporting as ordered!
Yeah, A for effort, but I think the period creates a conceptual divider that's hard to get past (it did for me, at least). Or maybe you just need a better audience. Sorry!
Why would you expect me to be surprised? I made the same point in the post you quoted. And yes, deciding you will never, ever buy something from a company from now until the end of time because you don't like some of their past products is irrational. But certainly one has that choice. And as they say, haters gonna hate.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Agreed. Let's keep the factions in Organized Play, please. :)
The company put those people there. The company has put the next batch of designers there too. It would of course be different if the old bunch were laid off because WotC were unhappy with what they did with 4th edition, but as far as anyone can tell, they were simply laid off because christmas.
I'd strongly disagree...I got the distinct impression that Bill Slavicsek was shown the door in the wake of 4E's failure to meet expectations. I certainly don't think they planned on 4E being replaced this quickly. But I can't prove that, of course.
My point remains: Boycotting WotC over 4E (if that is in fact what is happening here) seems like boycotting Ford because you didn't like the 2008 F150. People certainly do that sort of thing -- I'm just not sure how rational it is.
Then again, GRAWR at WotC is pretty commonplace here.
Won't buy, won't play. I will never, ever again touch anything with wizards of the coast logo.
You do understand that the leadership responsible for 4E (which I assume is the source of your vehement dislike) is gone, right? It seems silly to blacklist an entire company for the actions of a few, especially when those responsible are no longer there...
Scott Betts wrote:
Actually, it seems to have more to do with inferred motive than it does suspension of disbelief. Though I think we've milked this topic for all it is worth...
Doug OBrien wrote:
13th Age seems decent from what I recall of my initial read through last year.
I like what I've seen so far. And to be fair, I'm pretty sure if it were the industry leader, it would have its share of "overzealous" fans. It's just that the vehemence with which people on the Internet (and on these boards in particular) defend their hobby preferences against any slights -- real or imagined -- can be a little...trying.
Pretending this is about Obama and that it willbe different with the next guy is the real obfuscation.
Yes, but that's what we do. If your guy isn't in office, then everything is the fault of the guy who is (who, BTW, is about to destroy America. Any minute now.) If he is in office, well then Congress did (or failed to do) it.
Isnt the reverse also valid though? People who are here on a Paizo message board saying that they are ready to jettison Pathfinder on a game who's final version hasn't been released yet?
It certainly is.
Hell, I was saying those things here in 2007-2008. And I firmly believe that it was 100% WotC's game to lose...and boy did they.