Academic article on Edition Wars


Gamer Life General Discussion

201 to 250 of 528 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

OK. Well, this way, it all works out. Some of those internet revenues will now have to go towards feeding my miniatures habit, however.

Edit: How did Sebastian's last post disappear?


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Wait! I recently won YOU in another thread, so this means I own the internet!

I pwn mad internetZ.


Keep it up, Kirth. More minis for me. And some new subscriptions!


Kirth Gersen wrote:

Scott, I can sympathize with you through most of this, but one thing to remember is that Paizo has set themselves up, more or less, as a "haven for the disaffected." In a sense, Pathfinder is a blantant anti-4e. Unfortunately, that means that almost any mention of 4e is met here with cries of "blasphemy!" -- and why wouldn't it be? -- that's the target audience of the company, people who don't like 4th edition. It's kind of unreasonable to expect, well, reasoned argument about it.

I think it's too bad that people do see this as a place for people that are anti-4E rather than a place that is for people that are pro-Pathfinder/3.5. I see being anti-4E as kind of limiting, always having to measure against 4E and miring you in what you dislike. Being pro-Pathfinder/3.5 instead focuses on what you enjoy and would seem to suggest looking for ways to have more fun with a system you are avidly supporting. That's why I hope that Paizo's true target audience is the pro-Pathfinder/3.5 crowd vs the anti-4E crowd. I see the anti-4E crowd as being a possible detriment to the pro-Pathfinder community as they may shoot down perfectly viable improvements to the game simply because a mechanism is "too 4E."

In the interest of honest disclosure, I feel obligated to say that I play & enjoy 4E. I feel for the group I play with, the switch to 4E is an improvement that makes the campaign more fun. However, this does not prevent me from seeing that people do have fun with 3.5 & that Paizo has some real spiffy games/stories in the Pathfinder AP's.

I'm of the opinion people should spend less time focusing on the things they dislike. It takes away time from the things that you enjoy, and life's too short to miss out on those things!

Liberty's Edge

Scott I think you have been slightly unfairly singled out. I personally think for my tastes you are slighty too 4e - but live and let live.

I think you defending the game you obviously enjoy is a benefit to the boards. I hope you continue to dispel hear-say and chinese whisphers regarding 4e. I would hate to think that people undecided make their choice of whether to give 4e a go or not is based on the disaffected (as they have been called).

Even if we disgree at times best regards,
S.


Scott Betts wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Scott, I can sympathize with you through most of this, but one thing to remember is that Paizo has set themselves up, more or less, as a "haven for the disaffected." In a sense, Pathfinder is an anti-4e.

The Paizo staff does not want their game to be seen in this light, though the general perception seems to be that it's accurate.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Unfortunaterly, that means that almost any mention of 4e is met with cries of "blasphemy!" And why wouldn't it be -- that's the target audience of the company, people who don't like 4th edition. It's kind of unreasonable to expect, well, reasoned argument about it.

Reasoned argument would be far preferable to the behavior witnessed in the last few days.

And you're right, mere mentions of 4th Edition provoke this reaction. The worst part is that there does not seem to be any real desire within the Paizo community to change this behavior. Its reputation has already suffered; the other big RPG online communities have a solid view of the Paizo boards as hostile and insular. snip

I try not to speak for others, but personally I post here precisely because these boards AREN'T as hostile seeming as places like ENWorld, the wotc boards, and rpg.net.


Rockheimr wrote:

I try not to speak for others, but personally I post here precisely because these boards AREN'T as hostile seeming as places like ENWorld, the wotc boards, and rpg.net.

Those forums tend to drive people who disagree with their views of 4E to this forum. Last I want to see is to get more of the blind fanatism of the 4E fans here.


Fuchs wrote:
Scott, you are the best argument for an ignore function on those boards. Your hypocritical and arrogant crusading for 4E and your inability to accept any critic of it - no matter how true - should be labelled as the trolling it is.

It seems to me that he has been exceedingly polite given the tone of your posts. If I needed an ignore button, frankly it would be for you.

Check what bridge you're hiding under.

- Ashavan

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Koldoon wrote:
Fuchs wrote:
Scott, you are the best argument for an ignore function on those boards. Your hypocritical and arrogant crusading for 4E and your inability to accept any critic of it - no matter how true - should be labelled as the trolling it is.

It seems to me that he has been exceedingly polite given the tone of your posts. If I needed an ignore button, frankly it would be for you.

Check what bridge you're hiding under.

- Ashavan

+1.

You should post in these debates more often Ashavan. I think part of the problem is that Scott serves as a lightning rod for certain...let's say, maturity challenged posters...and your posts are good at reminding everyone that, just like not all 3.5 fans are incapable of communicating politely and intelligently, not all 4e fans are "fanatics".

Aw shit, I meant to smurf.


houstonderek wrote:

Hsnip

And to the 4e haters. Um, it's June, '09, not June '08. Please get over it. Paizo took up the mantle to keep the OGL going, there's an alternative to 4e in existence (several, in fact, if you consider Mongoose and Green Ronin as well). Continuing to cap on 4e serves little to no purpose any more. It isn't the only game in town.

;)

But this isn't a 4e thread in the 4e section. Some of the discussion was quite interesting, and some of my posts were direct answers to questions posed by 4e supporters. I don't think it's fair to suggest we 4e haters (a label I am content to shoulder) are in some way thread capping a 4e thread in this instance. For myself I don't post in the 4e threads anymore (check if you like ;-) ), as that probably is now pointless and rude, but I feel quite free to post anti-4e posts (or posts that could be interpreted that way) elsewhere on this site.

A discussion is a discussion, I'm kinda glad everyone has an opinion and I am more than happy to read them, or ignore them, or respond politely to them. Isn't that what message boards are all about. The exchange of ideas and opinions?


Wagyu wrote:
I think it's too bad that people do see this as a place for people that are anti-4E rather than a place that is for people that are pro-Pathfinder/3.5.

Unfortunately, the impression I get is that very few people play both. People who liked the new edition switched over to it and abandoned the older game. Those who refused to change over got Pathfinder, a new spin on 3.5. I'm not sure there's a whole lot of overlap between the two groups.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Fuchs wrote:
Rockheimr wrote:

I try not to speak for others, but personally I post here precisely because these boards AREN'T as hostile seeming as places like ENWorld, the wotc boards, and rpg.net.

Those forums tend to drive people who disagree with their views of 4E to this forum. Last I want to see is to get more of the blind fanatism of the 4E fans here.

I have a marginal preference for blind fanatics over trolling douchebags, but honestly, both groups could jump in a lake as far as I'm concerned.


Rockheimr wrote:


I try not to speak for others, but personally I post here precisely because these boards AREN'T as hostile seeming as places like ENWorld, the wotc boards, and rpg.net.

I (usually) lurk on these boards for that very same reason.


Sebastian wrote:
Koldoon wrote:
Fuchs wrote:
Scott, you are the best argument for an ignore function on those boards. Your hypocritical and arrogant crusading for 4E and your inability to accept any critic of it - no matter how true - should be labelled as the trolling it is.

It seems to me that he has been exceedingly polite given the tone of your posts. If I needed an ignore button, frankly it would be for you.

Check what bridge you're hiding under.

- Ashavan

+1.

You should post in these debates more often Ashavan. I think part of the problem is that Scott serves as a lightning rod for certain...let's say, maturity challenged posters...and your posts are good at reminding everyone that, just like not all 3.5 fans are incapable of communicating politely and intelligently, not all 4e fans are "fanatics".

Aw s%~~, I meant to smurf.

Wow thanks, not ALL 3.5 fans (I'll take that to include those of us who aren't exactly 'fans' of 3.5 but think it highly preferable to 4e) are incapable of communicating politely and intelligently then? How thoroughly decent of you.

Nice way to imply the vast majority of said posters are basically morons that.

Liberty's Edge

Rockheimr wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

Hsnip

And to the 4e haters. Um, it's June, '09, not June '08. Please get over it. Paizo took up the mantle to keep the OGL going, there's an alternative to 4e in existence (several, in fact, if you consider Mongoose and Green Ronin as well). Continuing to cap on 4e serves little to no purpose any more. It isn't the only game in town.

;)

But this isn't a 4e thread in the 4e section. Some of the discussion was quite interesting, and some of my posts were direct answers to questions posed by 4e supporters. I don't think it's fair to suggest we 4e haters (a label I am content to shoulder) are in some way thread capping a 4e thread in this instance. For myself I don't post in the 4e threads anymore (check if you like ;-) ), as that probably is now pointless and rude, but I feel quite free to post anti-4e posts (or posts that could be interpreted that way) elsewhere on this site.

A discussion is a discussion, I'm kinda glad everyone has an opinion and I am more than happy to read them, or ignore them, or respond politely to them. Isn't that what message boards are all about. The exchange of ideas and opinions?

I probably should have been clearer in that post. I meant to qualify that as thread crapping in the 4e forums. I pointed out in a later post that the rest of the forums are for 3x/Pathfinder fans, and whatever they wish to discuss about whatever shouldn't be anyone's concern, as long as they stay out of the 4e threads.

Sorry :)

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Rockheimr wrote:


Wow thanks, not ALL 3.5 fans (I'll take that to include those of us who aren't exactly 'fans' of 3.5 but think it highly preferable to 4e) are incapable of communicating politely and intelligently then? How thoroughly decent of you.

Nice way to imply the vast majority of said posters are basically morons that.

You might want to reread what I wrote (perhaps setting aside the axe you were hoping to grind), but in case it's in any way ambiguous, my intent was not to say that all (or even some number close to all) 3.5 fans are incapable of communicating politely and intelligently. In fact, the vast overwhelming majority, a majority in which I count myself a member, are polite, mature, and great folks.

Alternately, you could read my statement to say that I think that nearly all 3.5 fans are incapable of communicating politely and intelligently, just like I think all 4e fans are fanatics. It begs the question of why I post on boards about D&D and its offspring, but, hey, I suppose I can't argue that the statement can be read that way.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Unfortunately, the impression I get is that very few people play both. People who liked the new edition switched over to it and abandoned the older game. Those who refused to change over got Pathfinder, a new spin on 3.5. I'm not sure there's a whole lot of overlap between the two groups.

I play both.


houstonderek wrote:
Rockheimr wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

Hsnip

And to the 4e haters. Um, it's June, '09, not June '08. Please get over it. Paizo took up the mantle to keep the OGL going, there's an alternative to 4e in existence (several, in fact, if you consider Mongoose and Green Ronin as well). Continuing to cap on 4e serves little to no purpose any more. It isn't the only game in town.

;)

But this isn't a 4e thread in the 4e section. Some of the discussion was quite interesting, and some of my posts were direct answers to questions posed by 4e supporters. I don't think it's fair to suggest we 4e haters (a label I am content to shoulder) are in some way thread capping a 4e thread in this instance. For myself I don't post in the 4e threads anymore (check if you like ;-) ), as that probably is now pointless and rude, but I feel quite free to post anti-4e posts (or posts that could be interpreted that way) elsewhere on this site.

A discussion is a discussion, I'm kinda glad everyone has an opinion and I am more than happy to read them, or ignore them, or respond politely to them. Isn't that what message boards are all about. The exchange of ideas and opinions?

I probably should have been clearer in that post. I meant to qualify that as thread crapping in the 4e forums. I pointed out in a later post that the rest of the forums are for 3x/Pathfinder fans, and whatever they wish to discuss about whatever shouldn't be anyone's concern, as long as they stay out of the 4e threads.

Sorry :)

Fair enough Hous', I must have missed your follow up post. Apologies. :-)

Dark Archive

Honestly, I'm a bit amused at how civil all of the boards being brought up here are in comparison to say something like the ones at www.ign.com

You know your boards are bad when your editors take it upon themselves to actually make fun of the way they can set off a board war.

Not to imply that anyone around here needs to get out more, but in comparison to some of the boards for other games like Warhammer 40K, and videogames in general ... the RPG boards are like rainbows with pots of gold at the end.

And ain't no one seen a system war until you see a Xbox fanatic against a Playstation fanatic. Kids get killed over them apples.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

Scott, I can sympathize with you through most of this, but one thing to remember is that Paizo has set themselves up, more or less, as a "haven for the disaffected." In a sense, Pathfinder is a blantant anti-4e. Unfortunately, that means that almost any mention of 4e is met here with cries of "blasphemy!" -- and why wouldn't it be? -- that's the target audience of the company, people who don't like 4th edition. It's kind of unreasonable to expect, well, reasoned argument about it.

The logic seems to be that if someone equates computer games with "no roleplaying" and says that's bad, well, then 4e must be based on computer games, because 4e is bad: QED. (Personally, it reminds me more of Magic: The Gathering for some reason, with the monster card layouts, but I don't personally have enough experience with either game to really support that statement.)

One could suggest that Paizo's audience is those who like well written adventures, since the quality of their adventures is what they're known for.


Koldoon wrote:
One could suggest that Paizo's audience is those who like well written adventures, since the quality of their adventures is what they're known for.

That's certainly true in my case -- I switched (grudgingly) to 3.5 only because that's the ruleset that Paizo used for Dungeon magazine when they had it. If Paizo had switched to 4e, I probably would have, also, to be honest.

(In terms of rules systems, I still personally find the old Victory Games 007 rules to be superior to 3rd edition, 4th edition, AND Pathfinder... but nobody uses those rules for fantasy settings.)

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Koldoon wrote:
One could suggest that Paizo's audience is those who like well written adventures, since the quality of their adventures is what they're known for.
That's certainly true in my case -- I switched (grudingly) to 3.5 only because that's the ruleset that Paizo used for Dungeon magazine when they had it. If Paizo had switched to 4e, I probably would have, also, to be honest.

Sorry, I can't see you playing with dolls...

Inside joke, folks, back off!


Koldoon wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Scott, I can sympathize with you through most of this, but one thing to remember is that Paizo has set themselves up, more or less, as a "haven for the disaffected." In a sense, Pathfinder is a blantant anti-4e. Unfortunately, that means that almost any mention of 4e is met here with cries of "blasphemy!" -- and why wouldn't it be? -- that's the target audience of the company, people who don't like 4th edition. It's kind of unreasonable to expect, well, reasoned argument about it.

The logic seems to be that if someone equates computer games with "no roleplaying" and says that's bad, well, then 4e must be based on computer games, because 4e is bad: QED. (Personally, it reminds me more of Magic: The Gathering for some reason, with the monster card layouts, but I don't personally have enough experience with either game to really support that statement.)

One could suggest that Paizo's audience is those who like well written adventures, since the quality of their adventures is what they're known for.

Maybe. Certainly I buy Paizo products largely for the excellant and extensive fluff mainly, to mine for my own adventures and campaigns.


houstonderek wrote:
Sorry, I can't see you playing with dolls...

Heh. Have I played ANY game without houseruling the hell out of it to the point where it's no longer identifiable? I used to have houserules for freakin' checkers, dude.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Sorry, I can't see you playing with dolls...
Heh. Have I played ANY game without houseruling the hell out of it to the point where it's no longer identifiable?

True. But, dude, I snuck out and played it a bit. I can't even get my mind around how to keep track of all that stuff without minis...

You'd wind up houseruling it back to 3.0 or something.

And, given your board ident, I can't see you losing losing Vancian magic...


houstonderek wrote:
You'd wind up houseruling it back to 3.0 or something. And, given your board ident, I can't see you losing losing Vancian magic...

Or better yet, back to something closer to GURPS... with Vancian magic, of course. Hell, why am I not playing Dying Earth?


ghettowedge wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Unfortunately, the impression I get is that very few people play both. People who liked the new edition switched over to it and abandoned the older game. Those who refused to change over got Pathfinder, a new spin on 3.5. I'm not sure there's a whole lot of overlap between the two groups.
I play both.

As do I.


Abbasax wrote:
ghettowedge wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Unfortunately, the impression I get is that very few people play both. People who liked the new edition switched over to it and abandoned the older game. Those who refused to change over got Pathfinder, a new spin on 3.5. I'm not sure there's a whole lot of overlap between the two groups.
I play both.
As do I.

This makes me feel a whole lot better about the whole thing, actually. I was hoping I was wrong; a lot more people like you guys would convince me of it.


Huh, can we please get back to my ownership of Sebastian's internet?
I really don't care how people act on it now if I make money off of it either way.

Liberty's Edge

OK,
I tend to stay out of the discussions about which edition has issues and what they are. In fact I tend to be more of a lurker then a poster. I have been a gamer since the good old red box of D&D. I have seen D&D marketing in a number of odd directions. The shoes are not my thing honestly (being 6'6" tends to make you stand out to begin with). BUT I digress.

There would be no Pathfinder or 4e without the years of 3rd edition and 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons. I am really suprised that this 4e/pathfinder thing seems to make us all so upset. All of you seem to be forgetting the most important thing, we are all gamers. Is WOTC or PAIZO superior? I think the real important point is it does not matter. Without all of us there is no gaming anywhere.

I like paizo a lot, they are supporting something that has been dear to me for years, and I will purchase products them. WOTC owns the brand that I have been with since 1980, and I will purchase products from them as well.

Does it really matter what someone says about either system and hating it? The internet has allowed people the chance to say anything they want in complete anonymity, so many times people will spout poison and think its brilliant. I have never understood why so many people decide to dissect the posts of others. Does the fact that they are ignorant really hurt anything? I do not think so. I could claim someone is an alien, it would not make them so.

A crazy person standing on a mountain top screaming 4e SUCKS!!! is just that until someone gives him a chance to argue. Ignoring these threads will eventually make them go away, the trolls will get bored and move on.

So honestly, trying to have an intelligent debate either way is like arguing with a religious fanatic. Are 4e and Pathfinder different? ABSOLUTELY and this makes me happy. I remember the systems no one talks about, Eathdawn, Everway, Talislanta and even lone wolf. As I type this I look around my gaming library fondly.

In closing, remember we are all gamers, and wasting time on in fighting does not make us or our hobby better. Next time you are really annoyed at message boards, go make a magic item, a new spell or power, or go to one of the smaller sites and give them some love. It will improve this community and those that have gotten us here.

Liberty's Edge

Abbasax wrote:
ghettowedge wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Unfortunately, the impression I get is that very few people play both. People who liked the new edition switched over to it and abandoned the older game. Those who refused to change over got Pathfinder, a new spin on 3.5. I'm not sure there's a whole lot of overlap between the two groups.
I play both.
As do I.

And I. Well I play 4e (don't like DMing it) and DM Pfrpg (don't like playing as a PC in it).

So I'm set, a game I play and game I run. Ying & Yang...

S.


People who play both and are patient with those of us who are a little bitter and still want to hang out with us are super good, in my book.

Liberty's Edge

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
People who play both and are patient with those of us who are a little bitter and still want to hang out with us are super good, in my book.

I always want to hang out with the cool kids...

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Scott Betts wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:


True, it's not like he's saying that 4e defenders shouldn't post anywhere. I mean saying that about 4x critics would be juvenile and provoking, kind of like 'Stay classy, Paizo fans' is attempting to besmirch an entire community.

That's not what I said, and you know it. If you really want to stomp on my reputation some more, Matthew Morris, do so in context.

And no, "Stay classy, Paizo fans," is a reminder to everyone that you represent a community. Your behavior helps determine this community's reputation.

It would be really awesome if you would stop interpreting everything I say in the worst light possible. I haven't personally insulted you, kicked your dog, or any other such slight. I'm tempted to say that the only reason you have chosen to repeatedly single me out is because I dare to be just as confrontationally defensive about 4th Edition as others are confrontational about attacking it (though, quite often, I am much less confrontational, and always less vitriolic).

What? You mean I linked to the very words of the other Scott Betts? The other one who said the answer to 'If it [dislike of 4th edition] doesn't belong in the 4th edition forums, where does it belong' was 'nowhere'?

And get off the martyr complex. Since you read my post, and knew how to hit the 'reply to' button, I'll assume you also knew how to use the 'page down' button on the keyboard. You know the one where ypu could see the post I was defending you for your post on the thread and not 'starting it'.

Try reading it again. Ask for help with the big words. Not the action of one who 'repeatedly singles you out' I've asked Pax to tone down the vitrol in the past, and asked others. Of course since you're so 'non confrontational' and 'less vitriolic' I'm sure you're just too modest to read thigns that take your whining and tear it to tiny little shreds.

It's like your 'stay classy Paizo fans' swipe. You only use it when you feel that somneone who has a beef, legitimate or not, about 4x, gets snarky. To say it's a 'reminder to stay classy' is laughable on its face.

But hey, stay classy 4e fans.


Matthew Morris wrote:
But hey, stay classy 4e fans.

I do my best.


In GW's case, it's the hair gel.


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
In GW's case, it's the hair gel.

Well, it's definately not D&D shoes.

Dark Archive

ghettowedge wrote:
Well, it's definately not D&D shoes.

What is these D&D shoes everyone keeps talking about? ...


Sebastian wrote:


You should post in these debates more often Ashavan. I think part of the problem is that Scott serves as a lightning rod for certain...let's say, maturity challenged posters...and your posts are good at reminding everyone that, just like not all 3.5 fans are incapable of communicating politely and intelligently, not all 4e fans are "fanatics".

I'd say that anti-4e/anti-WotC posts act as lightning rods for Scott as well. He can't seem to let those go any more than certain critics of him can let his posts go.

People have opinions about 4e. No argument is going to change that. As for me, I don't like it much. I think it took some significant steps backward on design philosophy with respect to character design. I think that combat against elites and solos grinds like WoW on a laggy connection. And I'm dismayed that so many paragon path options load you up with combat powers rather than non-combat stuff to fit the path (fueling my impression that 4e is a glorified mini skirmish game). That's what my experience with the game and other gaming experiences leads me to think. Your experiences (and Scott's) may be different. Great. If you want to talk about my opinions, fine. But if you're not going to even make an attempt to understand them or see my perspective, I wish you wouldn't bother joining the discussion.


I'm another one who plays both 4E and 3.5, along with pretty much all of my local gaming group. At least in my area it seems that there isn't actually all that much vitriol between 4E and 3.5/Pathfinder gamers, it's just that the people who feel more strongly about it are the ones who tend to post about it more online.

Quote:

The Paizo boards have no obligation to be 4e friendly outside of the specific 4e sub forum (and again, they really have no obligation to host a sub forum for their competition, but they're cool like that; again, where's the Pathfinder sub-forum on the Wizards site?). In that sub forum, you are absolutely, 100% correct that trolling should not be tolerated and 4e (or WotC) hating should be moderated.

However, anywhere else on these boards that is not correct. The REST of the boards are for 3x/Paizo partisans. They can have and voice whatever opinions they want, as long as they don't attack anyone personally. (And, yes, I do think the Paizo peeps maybe should bring the hammer down a bit more when things get too personal).

And in a somewhat related fashion I disagree very strongly with the post quoted above. If the 4E boards are for 4E friendly discussion and all the other boards are for 3.x/Pathfinder partisans then where exactly should people who like both systems sit? Off at a different board altogether presumably. I don't particularly care to see random bashing of another game I enjoy dotted all over the forums when the topic has nothing to do with that.

(Note that I don't think the boards actually are like this, I'm just taking issue with the suggestion that they should be. I think the community here is really good from what I've seen so far, and not actually as rabidly anti-4E as I was led to expect.]

Each forum should be for respectful discussions on the topic of that board, whether positiive or negative about it. I don't think that everybody on the 4E forum have to be cheerleaders, but everybody should show some respect to the opinions of other people on those forums and trolling should be discouraged. The same goes for the Pathfinder forums. If every forum was only populated by people who were major fans of that one thing then the boards wouldn't be terribly interesting!

/being long-winded. er... In this particular post anyway!

Liberty's Edge

RaGeR wrote:
... a lot of good stuff...

Amen, Brother!

May I just add that we all "win". Everyone has a fun game to play.

Liberty's Edge

I play 4e and 3.5 both.
They're different Mechanics, so fights feel different but I'm still RolePlaying.

3.5 is more for Intermediate and Advanced. in my f2f we've got a couple of newbies to the hobby and while it's definatley do-able, teaching them the why's of rules is still tricky and sometimes baffling (well I am playing a grappling monk)

4e is a little easier to pick up and has easy defined answers to most things. (and I'm sorry but me loves me some skills challenges - best change of 4e IMHO)


Scott Betts wrote:


I'm not looking for the two games to have equal footing here. That would be ridiculous. I am looking for opinions to be treated equitably, and I am looking to be allowed to defend one of the games I am a fan of from criticism that is unjustified without having what often seems like the entire community come down on me for getting uppity.

Well, I'm up in the mountains for a few days, and Kaboom! Everything goes to hell. :P

Scott, I just wanted to chime in an say you're spot on, and you've done an admirable job of keeping your temper in the face of raging asshattery. Unfortunately, there are no IQ tests or logic police on the Internet; if there were, you wouldn't have had to put up with this much crap. The irrational, unrelenting hostility towards all things WotC is exactly what drove me away before. Hell, *I'm* pissed at WotC, and still the bile here can be overwhelming.

Like 4E or hate it, communities plagued by a#$%!+&s cannot thrive in the long run. IMHO Paizo can no longer afford to stick its head in the sand and let this go on; to do so will prove absolutely toxic to this community. And as for those of you who claim to support Paizo, yet continue to drain puss into this messageboard, ask yourself this: Are you really doing Paizo any favors?

Liberty's Edge

Matthew Morris wrote:
Try reading it again. Ask for help with the big words.

Honestly, is this necessary?

Goes back to reading her half-finished copy of "How to Keep my Mouth Shut". I'm just not learning anything...


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Wagyu wrote:
I think it's too bad that people do see this as a place for people that are anti-4E rather than a place that is for people that are pro-Pathfinder/3.5.
Unfortunately, the impression I get is that very few people play both. People who liked the new edition switched over to it and abandoned the older game. Those who refused to change over got Pathfinder, a new spin on 3.5. I'm not sure there's a whole lot of overlap between the two groups.

While there might be something to what you say, I think it's possible to be pro-Pathfinder/3.5 without being anti-4E. Just because 4E doesn't work for someone as their FRPG system of choice doesn't mean that they are anti-4E. All it has to mean is that they prefer the way Pathfinder/3.5 handles their gaming needs and so that's the system they will use. Alternatively, someone can like the AP's Paizo puts out so much that switching to 4E doesn't even occur to them.

Likewise, just because someone is anti-4E, it does not necessarily follow that they are pro-Pathfinder/3.5. I suppose it's possible that they are some sort of miserable miscreant who enjoys kvetching and bashing people for liking 4E and have found an environment that puts up with that sort of behavior. I have no idea if that describes anyone here who regularly frequents the Paizon boards, I don't think I've seen it myself. But I say that to try to make my point clearer. There is a difference between being pro-Pathfinder/3.5 and being anti-4E.

I like being around the pro-Pathfinder people. They seem like they're having a good time, and given the opportunity, I think I'd like to join them. The anti-4E people? I hope you get over your disappointment and spend more time doing the things you truly enjoy. If you truly enjoy bashing 4E, could you do me a favor and do something else you truly enjoy?


roguerouge wrote:

See the article here: Bryant

"An industrial rebellion is afoot in the role-playing game (RPG) scene. Traditionally, a tabletop RPG provides its players with a firm rules system within which they can construct their stories, but recent corporate changes to the fourth edition of the oldest and most popular system—Dungeons & Dragons (D&D)—have spawned a negative response so strong that players have actually begun to alter the game system against the wishes of its owners. Further, they have begun to publish these changes. In this essay, I will attempt to detail the development of this fan-created rebellion."

Comments on the paper?

An interesting read, but it feels to me to descend a bit too far in the direction of unsupported opinions from [3.3] onwards. Like other posters, I would have liked some numbers or quotes to back it up.

With regard to what the writer refers to as 'canon', I think that that will vary from gaming table to gaming table. For some tables the rules may well be 'canon', but for others an actual well-developed campaign setting may be regarded as canon (EG the Forgotten Realms), although the fact that the official material supports the imagination of the players, and that if the players no longer like the direction of the official material then they can wave goodbye to it and continue on regardless, may hold true to a lesser extent than for game rules.
Slightly disappointed to see no link to the Paizo boards. For someone who wheels out Paizo as an example it would have been nice if she [Rebeccas Bryant] had linked in 'further reading' to a thread or two on the topics she discusses on the Paizo boards. Does anyone have email capacity to contact her?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

JollyRoger wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Try reading it again. Ask for help with the big words.

Honestly, is this necessary?

Goes back to reading her half-finished copy of "How to Keep my Mouth Shut". I'm just not learning anything...

Maybe not, but I am just a bit annoyed when I'm accused of singling out someone, when I'm not.


On a somewhat related note, am I the only one who finds posts that either:

1. Complain about "complainers"; or
2. Attempt to moderate "self-appointed moderators."

pathetic and ironic at the same time?


Matthew Morris wrote:


Maybe not, but I am just a bit annoyed when I'm accused of singling out someone, when I'm not.

Which excuses calling someone a moron:

Matthew Morris wrote:


Ask for help with the big words

how?

Your posts often annoy me. May I now insult your intelligence?

201 to 250 of 528 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Academic article on Edition Wars All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.