|
This is NOT a bash 4th edition or 3.5 / PFRPG or any other system post.
This is a place for musing the potential philosophical and sociological ramifications of certain trends and business practices on the Gamer subculture.
So please, let's keep it civil and intellectual. Nonsequitors, hyperbole and "______ is stupid/sux etc" is NOT welcome here in any form, no matter WHICH edition you prefer.
Now to business:
I recently happened by a blogpost that captivated my interest as it did and does far better what I have wanted to for a while. I have reposted its contents here for the perusal of all.
Why Complain About 4e? Stop the Edition Wars!
June 9, 2009 · 45 Comments
As one of those who is known to still vent the occasional rant at 4e, let me chime in to explain why it’s not just pure wickedness and hate behind why I and others who find fault with 4e don’t just “shut up and go away.”This entry started as a response to a good post by Zachary the First in response to a Newbie DM article. It got long and I thought I’d post it here in expanded form.
I think what happened in the 3.5e->4e transition is clear to everyone who has analyzed the edition change to any degree. In short, a significant number of 3e and other legacy D&D players who enjoy simulationist play feel mostly left out in 4e as the rules changed to not support that playstyle well. The point of this post isn’t to debate this truth (go here for that); I think at this point it’s pretty much accepted among both 4e fans and detractors.
Which is fair enough. D&D play styles have been diverse over time; certain editions have supported different styles better, there are other games out there, etc. No playstyle is the “one true way,” it’s all personal preference.
However, besides the nostalgic cachet to the D&D trademark, there’s no denying that WotC is the 900 pound gorilla in the RPG market and D&D is the most played game. More support material is published for D&D than anything else. This means that the change in playstyle support has other secondary effects felt outside the printed pages of the PHB.
Some people – experienced gamers with a knowledge of the larger RPG landscape - pick the game system they rationally prefer. Many, many others are led into a default play style by the game they pick up first, the game that is on every bookstore shelf and the majority of people play – in this case, the majority of gamers are led to 4e by virtue of its market dominance and then get “molded” into the 4e style by playing it.
I think it’s clear that not all that market share is a clear case of “people have specifically chosen gamist tactical combat as their preferred mode of gaming;” with any new edition most sales are driven by “this is the new version of that popular thing.” But players begin, consciously and unconsciously, adhering to its default metaphor.
As we all know, gaming is a social hobby, and it can be hard to find gaming groups and, on the publishing side, get sufficient critical mass to get “fringe” products produced.
As a result, there is significant incentive for me and others who prefer a different type of gaming to continue to advocate for D&D to (re-)adopt our mindset (in 5e, if nothing else). Because when your style of gaming is marginalized outside D&D, then your ability to find like minded gamers and get products that suit your needs is severely degraded. Thus, even if I don’t play 4e, it affects me negatively by affecting the larger gaming ecosystem. (Note that me house-ruling to accomplish simulation in 4e doesn’t reduce any of these secondary effects, and is therefore not a useful solution).
This ecosystem effect is obvious. It’s why Microsoft pushes Windows – it’s not just for the dollars from Windows sales but from the effect on the resulting computing ecosystem that works against Mac, Linux, etc. on multiple levels. It’s just an effect, only good or bad from the point of view of which side of the ecosystem you play in.
It’s traditional that the majority doesn’t understand the concern of the marginalized – why be angry? Go with the flow! Nobody’s telling you what to do! But in the end, it’s not that simple (ask any minority group). It’s not anyone’s intent to marginalize simulation gamers, but intent has nothing to do with the actual results.
And that’s why I personally plan to continue to agitate for changes to D&D to reintegrate the simulationist banner within the game. Doing so produces:
the ability for me to play the best-supported and most-played RPG
the network effect of producing other games and gamers who are fluent in simulation play
Make sense? It’s not about an “edition war.” No one’s giving out a medal for “objectively best version of D&D.” It’s about “we want this kind of gameplay actively included in the world’s most popular role-playing game ™”. The discussion isn’t “over” because the latest version doesn’t support it; there will always be another version. In fact, it seems somewhat offensive and self-serving to tell people who don’t like 4e to “just go away, then” – our input into the development of D&D is just as valid as we’re still potential new customers.I don’t begrudge anyone enjoying 4e or not liking simulation play. These effects are not any of your “fault.” However, in aggregate, the effect that D&D 4e has of supporting and predominating products, gamers, and gaming groups that are simulation unfriendly results in marginalization and therefore measurable harm to my enjoyment of the hobby.
And I don’t think that continuing to advocate for this is totally in vain, either. Wizards certainly changed their tune some on the whole GSL/OGL thing, and I like to believe that change was facilitated by the press and critique that people, including myself, brought to bear.
Given all this, I hope the intelligent readers out there in the community will realize that this is the core problem that all the common retorts to criticism of 4e totally miss – “Well don’t play it then,” “House rule it!,” “People just fear change,” “4e’s out, it’s over, give up,” “Why don’t you complain about other games,” “I like 4e better because…” All valid thoughts, none of which come logically to bear on this problem. There are other RPGs I “don’t like,” that aren’t open, that only cater to one play style or another. But this is the one that pushes the entire industry in its direction, so both as a habitual D&D player but also as a RPG gamer in general, I have a vested interest in its course and desire input into it.
Here is the Link to the Blog where I reposted this from.
So what do you all think? I found it definite food for thought about deeper ramifications on our genre and subculture and the impact these things have on the market as a whole ...
|
From what I've seen, there are new people coming into the hobby with 4e. Also there are some converts from Pathfinder, I noticed several new faces here after the GenCon 09 release of Pathfinder. Then there are the disenfranchised, who are now seeking out new games to find...
I have a feeling many other systems have flourished with the exodus of some away from 4e...
The release of 4e was just the evolution breakpoint of the RPG industry, just as the inception of 3e was another...This one brings the 3rd party publishers to publish their own products, such as Savage Worlds, Heresy and the plethora of other titles; while the 3e inception brought 3e publishers to convert their rules into the d20 system, L5R, Deadlands & 7th Sea being amongst those that made that early transition.
I think Wizards of the Coast has ushered in a new age of RPGs, the exploration age, when people will explore what's out there more than before.
I just hope the hobby continues to grow, I have brought my children into the fold as many other gamer parents have, and I know they will recruit new players/gamemasters as they continue to get older...I may try to run a game for my kids plus a couple of their friends soon. (just have to figure out which parents won't be opposed...). A gamer sleepover! heh.
|
|
Isle of Dread. And explain to the parents it's a fantasy version of Pirates of the Caribbean without all that icky love stuff ^_^(just have to figure out which parents won't be opposed...). A gamer sleepover! heh.
That's an idea! heh...
I'll just explain they're playing Pathfinder, not Dungeons & Dragons ;)
Kobold trilogy would be OK too, K0 being a great intro adventure.
Interesting article, and I think it hits the problem spot on.
Though it's not that much of an issue with me - while my Saturday group has less people in it than I'd like, they're all more or less like-minded: They won't touch 4e with an 11-foot-pole, and really like Pathfinder. So at least there's no big conflict about what game we play.
And in the Saturday group, we do have more players, and they're either veteran D&D players who prefer 3e/PF over 4e, or new players we recruited (and who will be taught the 3e way of roleplaying).
Still, I can see the problem: It's hard finding people/groups for other games. The less mainstream, the more difficult. If the most famous game doesn't supply your play style, you have a problem.
|
I think the blogger takes the idea that "3.5 = simulationist (the very definition of which is up for debate) and 4e = gamist (ditto)" as settled fact, upon which he bases his whole thesis. I think that equation is an oversimplification, if not outright false.
That said, I can support his suggestion that if someone doesn't support the product or business practices of an RPG company, they should make sure that that company hears their complaint - by telling them and/or by supporting a rival company.
He seems to be advocating, though, that the "edition wars" have furthered that goal. I'm sure in some cases, they have, but in others, they have been destructive to the hobby at large.
I guess what I'm saying is, the sentiment isn't wrong, if it is put into action in the right way.
Yeah I agree with what he's going on about, but I think it's hopeless to "agitate for change". The world isn't the same as it was and the young people of today are not the old people of yesteryear. Play style is now controlled and dominated by the video game market so it's only natural that paper rpg's are imitating video games. I despise it myself but I am not a young person so I wouldn't possible understand and besides I still have paizo for now.....
So what do you all think? I found it definite food for thought about deeper ramifications on our genre and subculture and the impact these things have on the market as a whole ...
I think the author has hit the nail on the head regarding the reasons for the extreme disappointment that is still being expressed by a segment of WotC's former customers. I was actually looking forward to a revised 4th edition of D&D, but I was outraged when I discovered how different the game that I loved had been changed.
I wonder if the influx of new customers generated by the release of their newest edition of D&D has justified the amount of customers lost by WotC's decision to change the game so radically. If it has, then I suppose this discussion is moot. But if it hasn't, perhaps WotC should be paying attention to their former customers. I suspect that there was a short-term benefit to the release of 4E--at the expense of disenfranchising a segment of their customer base, but I don't see a lot of long-term benefits from that decision.
I also wonder what impact Pathfinder will have in the current environment. How much longer will WotC be the "900-pound gorilla" if Pathfinder continues with its success?
|
|
So what do you all think? I found it definite food for thought about deeper ramifications on our genre and subculture and the impact these things have on the market as a whole ...I think the author has hit the nail on the head regarding the reasons for the extreme disappointment that is still being expressed by a segment of WotC's former customers. I was actually looking forward to a revised 4th edition of D&D, but I was outraged when I discovered how different the game that I loved had been changed.
I wonder if the influx of new customers generated by the release of their newest edition of D&D has justified the amount of customers lost by WotC's decision to change the game so radically. If it has, then I suppose this discussion is moot. But if it hasn't, perhaps WotC should be paying attention to their former customers. I suspect that there was a short-term benefit to the release of 4E--at the expense of disenfranchising a segment of their customer base, but I don't see a lot of long-term benefits from that decision.
I also wonder what impact Pathfinder will have in the current environment. How much longer will WotC be the "900-pound gorilla" if Pathfinder continues with its success?
I also had an open mind when I was following the development of 4e, though I was mad that they had lied about it's development the previous year at Gen Con...before the big ad4enture switch.
When I saw the the rules, I didn't even see stuff I could borrow for my 3.5 games...I was completely crushed.
|
|
I think the blogger takes the idea that "3.5 = simulationist (the very definition of which is up for debate) and 4e = gamist (ditto)" as settled fact, upon which he bases his whole thesis. I think that equation is an oversimplification, if not outright false ... He seems to be advocating, though, that the "edition wars" have furthered that goal. I'm sure in some cases, they have, but in others, they have been destructive to the hobby at large.
Really? Where did you see that? If anything he seems to advocate an open dialogue and an end to "edition wars". Perhaps you and I simply read the nuances differently, but that is a wide discrepancy in our views.
Now by all means, you have every right to express and have your opinion (I mean, this thread began with me soliciting opinions anyways, I like to get feedback from different views :-P ).
I just find that there are several points that strongly resonate with me:
1.) That each edition seems to get less simulationist and more "basic", an essential watering down of an already rather straightforward set of mechanics, especially when going from 3.5 ---> 4th. This is rewarded by many consumer spending more money until the inevitable obsolecensce of each edition as more and more supplements equate to a "cluttering" of each edition, until the point where the owners feel "the dam has broken" and a newer edition goes into development.
2.) While each game's relative complexity and style is indeed entirely dependent on the DM and the player-group surrounding them, with each new edition the very "style" of play is jeopardized as less and less encouragement for actual ROLEplay is written into each game, in favor of a "pen and paper" videogame style. This, combined with the draw to the casual "gamer" in the shifting paradigm leads to a flooding of the hobby and virtual extinction of the simulationist style of play, as well as various hybridized or "artistic / thespian" styles which have come as "happy mediums" between the two.
3.) No matter what houserules or "tweaks" each table has, the drastic revision between 3rd and 4th, much like between second and third, has turned several "sacred cows" on their heads, for better or worse. As such, there is little comparison or conversion to be had between the two editions, and as such this alienates ALOT of the existing playerbase. PFRPG is a fantastic and welcome "middle-ground" but essentially all the existing WotC / Hasbro property (including reverted ones such as Dark Sun and Ravenloft) are either frozen or refashioned (such as FR) to promote this dubious step. As such, while it may even be a better system (a contested claim), it doesn't "feel" like D&D to many longstanding fans and consumers. As usual, Wizards has chosen to alienate their existing playerbase in favor of catering to newer, younger audiences.
Ah well. Viva La Paizo!
I am content with Pathfinder, personally. So long as we can get conversions of all previous 3.5 property, homebrew or otherwise.
I also wonder what impact Pathfinder will have in the current environment. How much longer will WotC be the "900-pound gorilla" if Pathfinder continues with its success?
We can only hope, sir. We can only hope ... The Bigger, Lazier and more Complacent they are ...
The "Mac vs. PC" analogy seems pretty apt.
I'm a big Mac user, myself. And I don't hold any hopes that Apple will displace Microsoft. As long as I can get a Powerbook and software to run on it, why should I care?
Back in the day, to extend the analogy, it looked like Wizards was going to end the availability of "software" for people who enjoyed playing 3.5e to extend their market dominance. 3.5e players were upset about this. It's unsurprising, but it looks like it's history.
Out of curiosity, is there an acceptable definition of the "simulationist" view?
|
|
I think the blogger takes the idea that "3.5 = simulationist (the very definition of which is up for debate) and 4e = gamist (ditto)" as settled fact, upon which he bases his whole thesis. I think that equation is an oversimplification, if not outright false ... He seems to be advocating, though, that the "edition wars" have furthered that goal. I'm sure in some cases, they have, but in others, they have been destructive to the hobby at large.Really? Where did you see that? If anything he seems to advocate an open dialogue and an end to "edition wars". Perhaps you and I simply read the nuances differently, but that is a wide discrepancy in our views.
Now by all means, you have every right to express and have your opinion (I mean, this thread began with me soliciting opinions anyways, I like to get feedback from different views :-P ).
I don't want to belabor it, but this is a fair question that deserves a fair response.
As one of those who is known to still vent the occasional rant at 4e......Thus, even if I don’t play 4e, it affects me negatively by affecting the larger gaming ecosystem...
...It’s traditional that the majority doesn’t understand the concern of the marginalized – why be angry? Go with the flow! Nobody’s telling you what to do! But in the end, it’s not that simple (ask any minority group). It’s not anyone’s intent to marginalize simulation gamers, but intent has nothing to do with the actual results.
And that’s why I personally plan to continue to agitate for changes to D&D to reintegrate the simulationist banner within the game...
...the effect that D&D 4e has of supporting and predominating products, gamers, and gaming groups that are simulation unfriendly results in marginalization and therefore measurable harm to my enjoyment of the hobby...
The above passages are not about "here is why I like my game better" or "here is how to civilly advocate for greater support for my style of play", but "this is why I'm angry and that's okay." That's a valid position if he wants to make it, but if that's not a justification for the edition wars, I don't know what is.
To be fair, I don't think the blogger is advocating drive-by 4e bashing, so if that's what "edition wars" mean to you, then yes, that's not what he's advocating. To me, the edition wars are defined by the "I've been wronged, and people playing this edition need to know why they shouldn't" attitude, which is what the blog is all about.
Your post also continues the dubious "simulationist" and "gamist" labels that no one has been able to satisfactorily define. Creating that division shifts the debate away from the games and companies themselves and towards a hypothetical discussion about two distinct play styles, when in fact all D&D editions have been a combination of the two.
I don't really disagree with anything in the blog post but in advocating agitating for a style of game I think there are a lot of potential pitfalls. Most of the time just saying 'if you don't like it play the game you do like' is a pretty valid answer since the alternative would seem to be pointless and destructive edition wars.
Even beyond this I'd argue that the best way to get your preffered style of play to be the next one adopted by D&D is to support products that use that style of play. D&D is a followers brand - ever since 2nd they have followed market trends - as opposed to making them,
2nd edition, especially early 2nd edition, emphasized role playing and de-emphasized dungeons because the trends in the rest of the RPG market were doing that successfully. 3rd edition went back to the dungeon and incorporated a rule system that was identical for both the players and the DM because the trend in the larger RPG community was heading this way with many excellent games finally incorporating rule systems where the DM and the players played by the same rules.
Finally 4th edition followed the marketing trends that had now emerged. With most DMs and players being deep into their careers, and often married with children, games like Spirit of the Century and Savage Worlds were doing exceptionally well despite being produced by small companies with low marketing budgets. Simulationism, as a trend, was out as the amount of time available for gaming by many gamers was way down and emphasis had turned toward being able to tell a significant chunk of the story in the 4 hour blocks of time the average gamer group had available each week. Plus, of course, Blizzard had just proven that, if you could make your game accessible, you could rope in a phenomenal number of players. Once again WotC followed the trail blazed by others and created a game meant to hop on this bandwagon.
In all likelihood 5th edition will do the same thing - it'll follow the trends in an attempt to cater to the largest possible market and follow in the footsteps of other RPG companies that are having great succsess with their style of game.
Thus I feel ranting and raving about how bad 4E is won't likely change anything for 5th edition - 5th edition will follow where the marketing trends are heading. If one wants heavy simulationistic style gaming then the best way to get 5th edition to be that style of game is to support companies that create that style of game.
|
|
Through all of this paizo still makes the game that everybody used to love. I only started role-playing in 3.0, and the entire feel of 4th ed feels too videogamey for my taste. I play table top games precisely because they'll always be capable of things video games aren't. Ultimately I've been championing pathfinder to all the new table-top players in my area. They tell me the reason they enjoy it is the awesome factor of customising their own character and having them capable of practically any action they can imagine. If enough people support pathfinder and enough people support dungeons and dragons then there's more than enough room for everybody.
|
(we apparently won btw)
We both won. 4e fans have their game. 3e fans have their game. It's got all the makings of a happy ending all around, like great sex with mutually gratified partners, except for the handful of people still b+@$$ing and trying to figure out 'what's wrong with' the people who chose the other system.
If everyone is playing a game that they enjoy, nobody's 'doing it wrong.' Good for us. Good for them. Good for people who threw up their hands and went off to play Exalted or Savage Worlds or Mutants & Masterminds. It's all good.
|
|
Finally 4th edition followed the marketing trends that had now emerged.
and
Plus, of course, Blizzard had just proven that, if you could make your game accessible, you could rope in a phenomenal number of players. Once again WotC followed the trail blazed by others and created a game meant to hop on this bandwagon. In all likelihood 5th edition will do the same thing - it'll follow the trends in an attempt to cater to the...
I agree with you. But I can not but feel very sad. It was D&D that birthed the Computer roleplying games. It was D&D that set the feel and many of the "laws" of Computer roleplaying games. But now it is these Games that set the "laws" (mechanics and how it is played). To me it feel like Ourobos is finally biting it's own tail.
With most DMs and players being deep into their careers, and often married with children, games like Spirit of the Century and Savage Worlds were doing exceptionally well despite being produced by small companies with low marketing budgets. Simulationism, as a trend, was out as the amount of time available for gaming by many gamers was way down and emphasis had turned toward being able to tell a significant chunk of the story in the 4 hour blocks of time the average gamer group had available each week.
I do not agree with your thoughts here. IMHO Rules and Playstyle (ie. Simulationist vs. Gamist) have NO correlation. Look at EGGs and Dave Arneson's OD&D from 74'. The 3 Booklets have less than 100 pages but were definetly using the Simulationist approach. It takes you less than 5mins to create a Character. Encounters are also much, much faster; even with groups of 8-10 players.
I rather think that the gamist approach takes into account the sources gamers use today for their inspiration. I do not think that many younger gamers have read a Robert E. Howard or H.P. Lovecraft or Edgar Rice Burroughs. But I think many have read Terry Godkind, Robert Jordan and R.A Salvatore. They might or might not have read LotR but they will have seen the Film. They will also have read a lot of Comics and/or the film adaption. They will probably also be influenced by the Asian Wuxia Films. And lastly they will most probably have played or at leats heard of MMORPG like Diablo and Warcraft.I think that all these different sources influenced the designers to create 4th edition as a Gamist and not Simulationist game.
So what do you all think?
I think it's one gamer's attempt to justify continuing the edition wars. Personally, I think there are far more constructive ways to steer culture trends than complaining and/or arguing on the internet.
D&D is a followers brand - ever since 2nd they have followed market trends - as opposed to making them.
I think this is the key that people like the guy in the OP are missing. D&D and WotC to not drive gamer culture; they are a passive force that follows trends. The changes in 4E were driven by the consumer, not Hasbro and WotC. Unfortunately, accepting that fact leaves the anti-4E crowd with no recourse. Who do you complain to or about when you find yourself in the minority as a consumer? Your only hope is that a) someone decides capitalize on and cater to your niche, and b) that your niche remains large enough for you to find like-minded consumers. What's appalling about the edition wars is that both of those hopes seem to be fulfilled, yet a bunch of whiny gamers still find it necessary to rail against the majority.
So in other words, there isn't an objective definition of simulationist, and essentially we're back to "I like it this way better!" :D
|
|
Fair enough, gentlemen (and presumably ladies, so I don't leave anyone out). Fair enough.
I think I have had a great deal of satisfaction of this debate, and definitely it has given me food for thought.
I do think a fair close is the pointing out of the apparent fallacy of D&D setting Market Trend, when it is in fact governed by it.
As such, there is PFRPG for one contingent and 4th Edition for the others, and a plethora of options outside that for anyone else dissatisfied.
However, on the topic of definitions, may I call your attention to the following:
GNS: Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist
Gamist
Gamist refers to decisions based on what will most effectively solve the problem posed. These decisions are most common in games which pit characters against successively tougher challenges and opponents, and may not spend much time explaining why the characters are facing them. For example, to resolve combat (a common event in many role-playing games), a gamist approach might be to compare a variety of scores that each involved character has, including character strength (and other attributes), skill, luck, weapon damage, armor durability, and the like. These scores are often translated into dice to provide a gamble and allow players to risk more for higher stakes (for instance, attempting a more effective hit in combat requires a penalty on the dice roll).... Dungeons & Dragons is often considered a Gamist role-playing game, as are computer RPGs. Detractors of gamist play often accuse players of trying to "win" a game whose purpose is to be enjoyed.[1] (See Rules lawyer.)
Narrativist
Narrativist refers to decisions based on what would best further a dramatic story or address a central theme. This terminology often confuses those who have not read the articles on which the model is based, and thus assume that any game in which mechanics act directly on story is narrativist. Some critics[who?] suggest that the term "themist" might be more descriptive, given that addressing a thematic issue is a necessary condition for labeling a creative agenda as "narrativist"; however, this then leads to the question of how to categorize games in which mechanics act directly on story and story constitutes the main priority of the creative agenda that do not prioritize theme...To resolve combat, a narrativist approach might be to consider the thematic implications of the fight, why the fight is important to the characters involved in it (beyond the obvious risk of harm), and what the story would look like if one side or the other won out. All of these considerations may be done aloud, mediated by dice, or simply resolved by GM discretion. As of 2006, many indie role-playing games are designed as Narrativist games, such as Dogs in the Vineyard or Sorcerer.
Simulationist
Simulationist refers to decisions based on what would be most realistic or plausible within the game's setting, or to a game where the rules try to simulate the way that things work in that world, or at least the way that they could be thought of working....To resolve combat, a simulationist approach might be to see if the character hits, then if the victim can parry, then how much 'damage' the weapon does, then determine what part of the victim is hit, then how much damage the armour in that location stops, then see how much harm the remaining damage does. The benefit of this method is that it is simple for the players to interpret the results and understand what must have happened. The drawback is that the process of obtaining the results can take a long time to perform, and may still not produce plausible results if it is inaccurate and/or incomplete. Often, simulationist games have numerous additional layers, often optional, that can be used to further increase the complexity of combat or other activities. These optional layers can include things like targeted attacks or the use of special techniques like martial arts, whose complexities can even require an entire optional sourcebook, as in the case of GURPS. Furthermore, an effect-based or statistical view can produce a Simulationist game that is more realistic, faster, and easier to run.
Here's the link if you are interested in citations and sources
The purpose of this thread was not to incite drama or further "edition wars" but to generate an exchange of ideas and impressions. I believe, despite appearances, it has indeed accomplished this with a minimum of "collateral damage" (in keeping with the pyrotechnic metaphor).
Thank you, all who participated and contributed.
|
|
The changes in 4E were driven by the consumer, not Hasbro and WotC. Unfortunately, accepting that fact leaves the anti-4E crowd with no recourse. Who do you complain to or about when you find yourself in the minority as a consumer?
Are those D&D players who do not play 4th edition for one reason or another really the minority?
We do not have any figures to confirm or reject this statement.We know that there is a sizeable number of gamers who stay with 3rd edition rules and all their incarnations (True 20 etc.).
We also know that there is a resurgence of the "old school" movement.
But without clear figures (and not just inductive speculation*) we do not know if 4th edition has the majority of EXISTING consumers.
But WoC does not only want to retain old consumers, they also want to aquire new gamers. These are the POTENTIAL consumers.
We can argue this back and forth, but fact is, we do not have any reliable figures to verify these speculation.
*like: My FLGS sells more X edition books than Y edition books, therefore X edition is more successfull than Y edition in general.
Thank you for the GNS Theory link. I find it a little too abstract and compartmentalized for my observations of actual play. Interestingly, the author of the theory later put it aside and used elements to form a different model. I shall have to read up on that as well.
People keep wanting to push this thread a certain way...
That's why personally I am really disappointed with Pathfinder. Here's paizo's chance to step on up, provide their great content for lots of new people in a fun new format. But no, They choose instead to take their bat and ball to their house, rather than play ball. Hey, whatever makes you happy really, still disappointed with you.
Actually, I can think of different "hedging" words on this point. Namely, the early versions of the "Game System License" were so restrictive, that it was near impossible for most companies to safely publish under them.
Besides:
"______ sux!"
Thank you for the GNS Theory link. I find it a little too abstract and compartmentalized for my observations of actual play. Interestingly, the author of the theory later put it aside and used elements to form a different model. I shall have to read up on that as well.
He's not the only one who thinks there are real problems with GNS.
|
I don't have time atm to read everything, but after skimming... its not accurate to characterize 3.x/Pathfinder RPG as "S" only. It can and is GNS depending on playstyle preferences and context of the game.
It would be like me saying 4e is "G", and for obvious reasons - it is.
3.x and their predecessors are the legacy of the Gygaxian/Arnesonian invention, and should always receive a respectful place in gamer culture. They knew something about the game that could get "lost" as society jumps on what is shiny and new.
There is a reason businesses and art sometimes struggle to reconcile their motis operendi. A lot of what the early games, and those editions like Pathfinder RPG hold true to is the history and traditions of the game. Not just becuase they are tradition, but because Gygax "knew" something special about balance----and these day's balance means something entirely different. He knew the secret to the way the game was meant to be played. And so, many of us reject the idea, that for monetary purposes only, the books and products need to be re-hashed every 3 years to sell more and make more money.
There is a very noble aspect to continuing tradition and history, but there is a very true aspect to playing fantasy rpg the way it was meant to be played. And yes, someone will say it was meant to develop and evolve, but never to the point of making a video game on the table top, and never to the point of making a mockery out of alignment cohesiveness, destroying 10+ years of realmslore with an atom bomb, nor attempting to lose the Gygaxian sensibilities of vancian magic or the ability to reason the reality of the fantasy. Second winds seems incongruous to me with the genre, and it places the mechanics of the game more akin to a card game than dungeons and dragons ever was.
So, there you have it - I bit at the chomp. I am one of those who will not stop sharing with newer generations why and how previous "editions" more resemble the game as it was meant to be played. Yet, I don't do it for quite the reasons explained in the blogpost. I do it because the game experience is a special one, not a trite one, and there is more magic to what happens at that table than the current "so-called" edition is even capable of acknowledging. I do it because, imho, left to its own devices, Hasbro via the wotci prefer to publish a Chutes & Ladders game that makes money, moreso than a dungeons & dragons that maintains its integrity.
What's appalling about the edition wars is that both of those hopes seem to be fulfilled, yet a bunch of whiny gamers still find it necessary to rail against the majority.
Let us remember that 3.5/PFRPG players are not the only ones who still feed the flames. Visit [Pathfinder] topics in RPG.net to see how some 4e enthusiasts jump on people praising PF like sharks do on bloodied puppies.
|
|
Interestingly, those Wikipedia quotes would seem to put 4e, 3.5, and Pathfinder in the "gamist" category all together. The definition even mentions "D&D" (not edition-specific) as an example of a gamist RPG. That would seem to undermine the argument of the initial blog that sparked this thread.
One has to consider the Source. The original proposer of that theory was designing a competing product in the then-extremely-niche market of RPGs ... GURPS I believe. I personally agree with others here that D&D / Pathfinder can easily straddle both, but I PREFER to not lose that inherent "birthright" of new D&D players to the traditions of auld by the New Logos of the D&D 4.0 Brand.
Clarification of VedicDragon's own thoughts
Brava... *eyes suspiciously* You aren't a Flayerspawn Initiate Reading my Mind, are you?? ARE YOU!!?!?!?!?!
*collapses, gurgling*
"M-m-m-Mother ..."
That being said, as much as I may agree with you (profoundly) I will restate that those of you who enjoy 4E, go you! If you love the new system, and whatever style of play you like, enjoy. I have no desire to be a wet blanket on that enjoyment, just as you all (4E players) must know that our grousing is not and should not be -AT- you for taking part in the hobby as and how you see fit. However, that being said, those of us who champion 3.5 Edition, or Pathfinder, or 2nd Edition, or OSRIC (OED&D) should not be denied a voice or stoned publicly via diatribe for lamenting the glorious rich heritage that has been butchered in the name of Economic Expedience.
People keep wanting to push this thread a certain way...
That being said, you are correct Pachyderm ... Let's steer this away from this direction, gang. Really, we don't need to swing this to yet another 4.0 vs PFRPG vs 3.x diatribe. That road does not lie Salvation. :-P
Well, as one of the guys that was largely disenfranchised by the 2E/3E split (I never really have gotten past my dislike of certain fundamental structures in 3.x and I don't even recognize 4E), I can say that over the years it has become nearly impossible to find a 2E group or even 2E events at conventions. They are out there but honestly I can't find one and I'm in Boston.
Now, back then there was nothing like Pathfinder to fill in the void of the missing edition. So there is a good chance for the 3.x system to survive over time. But when this happened before, it was a really sad "end of an era" period - like forever losing your youth and knowing you'd never be able to do that thing you really, really loved to do again.
Gygax didn't like 3rd edition. Trying to wrap his banner around it because you don't like 4e is a bit disrespectful.
Einstein didn't like quantum physics. Does that mean the quantum boys quit using him altogether out of respect?
Well, as one of the guys that was largely disenfranchised by the 2E/3E split (I never really have gotten past my dislike of certain fundamental structures in 3.x), I can say that over the years it has become nearly impossible to find a 2E group or even 2E events at conventions. They are out there but honestly I can't find one and I'm in Boston.
I hear you, and yes I felt the same way. Alas, I am way out here in California.
I hear you, and yes I felt the same way. Alas, I am way out here in California.
oh yes - but they were different. Some of them you didn't hit very often because it was really hard to get that high up in level (one of the problems :-).
What you didn't have was how players could sculpt a total overpowered character with feats (there was a bit of this with the "brown-book" kits, if you remember) and prestige classes. And then you also didn't have characters getting frustrated by their prestige class looking cool on paper but turning out to be lame in practice, among others.
oh yes - but they were different. Some of them you didn't hit very often because it was really hard to get that high up in level (one of the problems :-).I hear you, and yes I felt the same way. Alas, I am way out here in California.
I am not sure if that was actually a problem or not. (Slowing down level advancement sounds almost like a "solution" to several problems.)
You also didn't have the insane profusion of magic items, to the point where they are intergral to the function of a character.
I am not sure if that was actually a problem or not. (Slowing down level advancement sounds almost like a "solution" to several problems.)
oh don't get me wrong. I totally agree. The whole 3.x experience model is one of those things I can't get past. But we really shouldn't hijack this thread... :-)
I am not sure if that was actually a problem or not. (Slowing down level advancement sounds almost like a "solution" to several problems.)oh don't get me wrong. I totally agree. The whole 3.x experience model is one of those things I can't get past. But we really shouldn't hijack this thread... :-)
[threadjack] Actually, for me the "magic item" explosion has been a MUCH bigger problem. [/threadjack]
|
|
Kits introduced some doozies. Everyone and their dog took the Myrmidon kit, as a Fighter, it seemed, and there were plethora of powerful races with insane advantages in various splatbooks. (My favorite cheese? The Xixchil, which starts with two limbs that function like glaives, and can add more to itself surgically, as well as adding armor to itself surgically. My Xixchil Myrmidon glaive-specialist, with 9 attacks / 2 rounds, doing an average of 72 hp / round, went through Against the Giants like a bullet through flesh. In one end and out the other, covered in blood.) There were also some very gross things that could be done with archers, but that was never my particular interest, I just remember the archer in that group keeping up with my Xixchil, and we had a Legolas-and-Gimli competition going on.
The most egregious caster kid that I saw was the Totem-Sister, for Druids, in Elves of Evermeet. All the advantages of a Druid, plus the ability to create free runic carvings, all day long, that could do stuff like double the range of missile weapons or act as a cure light wounds (unlimited free cure light wounds? Yes, please). Several Runecarver type kits (one in a Giants sourcebook, another in a Dwarves sourcebook, both for the Realms, IIRC) were even more egregious, but I never got around to sampling those tasty cheeses.
Various supplements also introduced fairly crazy spells, with Dwarves Deep having some fantastic spells for Clerics, such as Fire Eyes (2 eye rays / round for 1 round / level that do 2d8 fire damage each and automatically heat metal armor on the target to the final round of effect from a heal metal spell, with a second hit, even in the same round, resulting in the metal items being destroyed).
We made various house rules to tone things down, but still blew away 'core' stuff. I blame Unearthed Arcana for starting the arms race, with classes like the Barbarian and Cavalier-Paladin and races like the Drow, Duergar and Svirfneblin. (Ironically, that same book introduced the Thief-Acrobat, which was just plain sad...)
With most DMs and players being deep into their careers, and often married with children, games like Spirit of the Century and Savage Worlds were doing exceptionally well despite being produced by small companies with low marketing budgets. Simulationism, as a trend, was out as the amount of time available for gaming by many gamers was way down and emphasis had turned toward being able to tell a significant chunk of the story in the 4 hour blocks of time the average gamer group had available each week.I do not agree with your thoughts here. IMHO Rules and Playstyle (ie. Simulationist vs. Gamist) have NO correlation. Look at EGGs and Dave Arneson's OD&D from 74'. The 3 Booklets have less than 100 pages but were definetly using the Simulationist approach. It takes you less than 5mins to create a Character. Encounters are also much, much faster; even with groups of 8-10 players.
I rather think that the gamist approach takes into account the sources gamers use today for their inspiration. I do not think that many younger gamers have read a Robert E. Howard or H.P. Lovecraft or Edgar Rice Burroughs. But I think many have read Terry Godkind,...
At this point you and I must not be using the same definition of simulationism and gamism.
I find it very difficult to argue that BECMI was a simulationist system. In fact I'd go so far as to say that huge amounts of BECMI DNA are in 4E. More often then not if the designers were looking for a way to speed things up they used a mechanic that would be recognizable from BECMI. I'd say that both BECMI and 4E are gamist compared to 3.5 and, as often as not, they are the same kind of gamist.
stuff
There's no such thing as "the way it was meant to be played", and all of your flowery words and covoluted reasoning won't change that fact.
|
|
I find it very difficult to argue that BECMI was a simulationist system. In fact I'd go so far as to say that huge amounts of BECMI DNA are in 4E. More often then not if the designers were looking for a way to speed things up they used a mechanic that would be recognizable from BECMI. I'd say that both BECMI and 4E are gamist compared to 3.5 and, as often as not, they are the same kind of gamist.
My example was OD&D, the three Booklets from 74', which is different from the Mentzer BECMI versions. OD&D still had a lot of the wargame rules (the Combat system for example). And the wargames from that time at leats, tried to simulate realty as best as possible for a game to still be playable.
Furthermore, even BECMI is much, much closer to 3rd edition than to 4th edition.But I am intrigued and willing to concede your point, what mechanics do you think 4th took from BECMI that were not already in 3rd?
|
I do it because, imho, left to its own devices, Hasbro via the wotci prefer to publish a Chutes & Ladders game that makes money, moreso than a dungeons & dragons that maintains its integrity.
5th Edition will come in a box and your character will be a generic, pre-generated piece of cardboard. That is the writing that I saw on the wall way back when Hasbro bought WotC. I just got the edition wrong. I knew then that the Dungeons and Dragons BRAND would be reduced to the lowest common denominator so that it could be monetized for maximum profit. I made peace with that and moved on with my life. I never bought more than a dozen of the 3.x books and still managed to have a blast playing for the better part of a decade. We slaughtered most of the 'sacred cows' that everyone harps about over a decade ago when we still played 2E. They made for some blessed hamburgers and the steaks were downright heavenly when smothered with blu cheese and with a side of portabellos.
Now, with Pathfinder, my group has a set of rules that we all agree on and that is what we'll be playing for the some time to come. We really appreciate Paizo going the distance by opening up the design process to us and listening to our concerns and then publishing a badace set of rules. We will continue to support them for as long as they continue to deliver the goods. Even if they had not come along we would not have started playing 4E because it lacks the dept of character design and development that we enjoy having in our game. We would have kept on happily playing 3.5 until our books fell apart.(Actually, we probably would have switched over to a heavily modified version of True20 but that is a subject for another thread.)I don't see the need to inflict my views on anyone nor constantly remind everyone who doesn't play my way or share my views of what they are missing out on and why my way is better than theirs. I honestly don't care what some random person said in a internet forum either. Once I have filled out my 3.x collection with a few miscellaneous things that I never could justify paying full price for I doubt I'll ever buy another product with the words 'Dungeons and Dragons' on it. Oh, well. I can throw a rock and hit another game system that is just as good, if not better. Table-top role-playing isn't going to die anytime soon. The industry will continue to grow and new games will continue to be produced. Gygax and friends created an industry that is far stronger than any sum of its parts. Stop trying to save something that doesn't need to be saved and enjoy what you have. The spirit of what Gygax and company created lives on when ever we play no matter what we play or how we play it. The act of playing in and of itself is what makes RPGs special, not the particular branding on the packaging. I am a Gamer first and brand loyal a distant second.
Furthermore, annoying the urine out of everyone by constantly reminding them of your own views and how superior those views are to anyone elses' when measured by your own subjective standards is not the way to entice people to join your cause. You just annoy the urine out of everyone. Try running one offs and invite those who don't play for your side to join in for the session. Win their hearts and minds. Contact conventions in your area and offer to run a table with whatever rules you use as a way to find other people who share your interests. (This does not mean that anyone wants to play what you have to offer and does not entitle you to players just because you showed up.) You can do one of two things when you get confronted by the LIFE in life: you can be re-active and sit around belly-aching about it or you can be pro-active and get up and DO something about it.
'What better place than here, What better time than now.'
Me? I start my Forgotten Realms Classic: Skullport campaign this November and my Spelljammer: The Rock of Bral campaign early next year while I continue to work on my homebrew and look for good classless, skill-based system(s). The nice thing is that I honestly don't care what anyone else is doing.
SM