|
Then other people wonder the gaming community paints all of the Paizo community as anti-4E. Someone says that 4E is a "stealth "edition and imp pretty much porven wrong and no matter what still keeps up with it. Then the 4$ defense brigade comment. Like PF fans don't defend their system either. I have nothing against someone who dislike 4E. It's when they make false claims about the game. But hey just better to use anything and everything to find any reason to crap on 4E. What else can one expect on these boards anyway.
Then other people wonder the gaming community paints all of the Paizo community as anti-4E. Someone says that 4E is a "stealth "edition and imp pretty much porven wrong and no matter what still keeps up with it. Then the 4$ defense brigade comment. Like PF fans don't defend their system either. I have nothing against someone who dislike 4E. It's when they make false claims about the game. But hey just better to use anything and everything to find any reason to crap on 4E. What else can one expect on these boards anyway.
Well, it's only a small minority of posters such as sunshadow21 or Hama that actively flamebait, most posters are respectful and interested in a real discussion, regardless of preferred system.
I'm actually surprised it has taken this long to get a 4E computer game released. The rule set was practically made for that exact use. As far as the earlier games go, Baldur's Gate and it's spinoffs were good at catching the spirit of the system it was based off of. Icewind Dale was pretty good about it. Neverwinter Nights was alright, but the official game isn't what most people are talking about when they talk about Neverwinter Nights; rather the modularity of it is the key to that game's success. ToEE I never played all the way through because I can't get it to run on the modern OSs, but what little I played demonstrated why 3.x rules don't translate to a computer game well. 4E rules, on the other hand, would do just fine in an MMO setting. It has enough interrupt powers that the turn based aspect is already largely ignored, even in the table top version.
And one last comment to Malaclypse, the subscription to Paizo and the subscription to DDI are completely different animals; they can't be compared to each other. Paizo's is mostly so they can more reliably print the right number of books. Most industries have companies with similar pre order arrangements to simplify their finances. DDI's subscription is to grant basic access to current information and special tools. You aren't buying a product that after you pay, you have more or less permanent access to, you are buying temporary access to services that WOTC is providing you that they can change, cut off, and manipulate whenever they want. One is not better than the other, they are just too different to compare.
There is a neverwinter coming out for 4th edition this year or the next. Plus, as good as neverwinter games were, they were horrible in emulating the rules. The only good game, rules-wise was Temple of elemental evil.
Which is pretty much the point.
If some game company did a good job of actually putting the rules in place for a 4E game I'd be thrilled and, presuming we get a good story etc. and it received some half descent reviews I'd lay my money down in a heartbeat. But I'm seriously doubtful it'll happen. My bet is they will be yawner click fests because 4E's tactical combat system is pretty intricate and not really applicable to a real time game - you might manage something along the lines of 'real time' by using a system similar to Frozen Synapse...but like that'll happen.
In other words could it be ported to a computer game? Sure. Will it be ported? Very doubtful it defies far to many conventions of modern action CRPGs.
It wouldn't make a very good single player CRPG, I will grant you that, but MMOs, where things are more fluid, and players have a bit more control over the world (ideally), the rules would port over pretty directly.
|
|
Well, it's only a small minority of posters such as sunshadow21 or Hama that actively flamebait, most posters are respectful and interested in a real discussion, regardless of preferred system.
The problem is one of perception. I know it's only a handful of posters. Unforuntely it seems to be the same ones yelling the loudest and the longest. Their not doing any favors to anyone least of all PF and Paizo. Thry have become the sterotype of the anti-4E fan.
|
|
For an rpg to be consider a new edtion would mean that if I wanted use something from the previous edition in the new one I owuld have to houserule it.With Essentials I do not. I can take a monster from any of the 4E MM and Essentials MM dump into a game side by side without any problem. I can take any class from the 4E PHB and any of the Essentials books place them in a game side by side with no changes. I cannot say the same for 3.5 and PF. Not saying PF is a new edition yet between Essentials and PF I have to put more work into using a clas or monster from 3.5 into a PF game.
Well, it's only a small minority of posters such as sunshadow21 or Hama that actively flamebait, most posters are respectful and interested in a real discussion, regardless of preferred system.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. I don't have a problem with most of the people here, and am perfectly willing to concede when they, or you, make good solid points. Last time I checked, raising questions in order to see if anyone is actually willing to come with actual answers rather than the same tired automatic defenses isn't flamebaiting. When someone actually proves my actual points wrong instead of repeating the same old tired lines, I gladly move on.
[
Pathfinder is 3e. People keep trying to forget or ignore this. 3e was already around for 9 years previous.They ignore it because it's wrong. Pathfinder is not 3.X and it never has been. For Pathfinder to have been 3.x it would have had to have been nothing but an SRD reprint a ala the Mongoose Pocket Books.
Pathfinder has it's roots in the SRD, but in the last two books and the next one coming has forked itself into a new game entirely.
Vive la 1.0!
Dreamscarred made several psionics books for 3e. Oh man, it had content that wasn't SRD. That means they were both writing for 3e and not writing for 3e at the same time!
Wait, didn't WotC make non-SRD books too? The entire complete ____ series wasn't 3e either!
Oh god, how does Tome of Battle or Tome of Magic or psionics or incarnum fit into here? This is insanity!
Dear god the paradoxes just keep adding up under your logic!
But, 4e is designed to mimic MMOS, because Wotc went and tried to please the MMO crowd, and make them play tabletop, you may not like the fact, but it is a fact.
It's not an insult. It's a fact.
I find it interesting that you find it insulting to have 4E compared to an MMO. To me at least, it was simply a point of fact.
I don't think you guys know what the word "fact" means. See, what you've been using is "blind assumption I made three years ago and refuse to budge from." Strangely enough, that is, actually, the exact opposite of a fact!
4E rules, on the other hand, would do just fine in an MMO setting. It has enough interrupt powers that the turn based aspect is already largely ignored, even in the table top version.
I don't understand this at all. The interrupts make the game significantly more tactical not less. Without them it would be a lot easier to get things into a computer game - if what I did was manly stand in front of the monster and beat on it and then wait for it to beat on me programming that would be much easier. However what really happens in a 4E combat is one chooses to use one of their powers, many of which involve me or the enemy moving around, often when its not even my turn. Depending on the action economy I may use one or many powers and they may take place in my turn or as an interrupt (either an immediate interrupt or an immediate reaction)
While I respect Gygax and Arneson for what they did, with all due respect, they aren't the end all of game design. Others can have differing opinions that are just as valid. Again, I don't understand why comparing 4E to MMOs gets such a harsh reaction. When the business models line up as much as they do, it should be expected. Anyway, since I clearly don't know anything about the game, and am clearly just trying to cause trouble, I will cease to bother all of you "gaming experts" who know everything about both 4E, Paizo, and probably every other game ever made as well.
I'm just curious.
Any of the people who ARENT playing 4E, how do you expect to out argue the people who are ACTUALLY CURRENTLY PLAYING THE GAME. You can't. In fact youre making yourselves look really, really bad becasue it's pretty obvious in reading your responses to the 4E people that you dont have an idea What the hell youre talking about.
Who I'd like to hear from are the people who are actually playing BOTH system and LIKE both systems and can respond and answer legitimate questions without snark.
I'm saying this a Pathfinder GM who tried 4E at the beginning and didnt really care for it. But I would never use my limited experience to tell a recent 4E player who has been ACTUALLY PLAYING or running the game what's what. The MMO argument is old and honestly I'm not even sure that it's an insult being that MMO's were strongly influenced by table top gaming so..FULL CIRCLE.
Again civil posters who play both and can discuss without being a dick would be AWESOME.
It wouldn't make a very good single player CRPG, I will grant you that, but MMOs, where things are more fluid, and players have a bit more control over the world (ideally), the rules would port over pretty directly.
I really don't think so, real time fluid is not really what 4E combat is all about, its a particularly mobile version of 3.5's tactical combat system with various elements built in to encourage variety. If I take an encounter power and put it on a 3 second time and have players spamming it and another encounter power (also on a 3 second timer) I'm not emulating 4E's tactical combat system at all - in reality encounter powers are tactical resources that are used up for the entire combat once used. The combat system is about utilizing limited resources effectively.
I'm just curious.
Any of the people who ARENT playing 4E, how do you expect to out argue the people who are ACTUALLY CURRENTLY PLAYING THE GAME. You can't. In fact youre making yourselves look really, really bad becasue it's pretty obvious in reading your responses to the 4E people that you dont have an idea What the hell youre talking about.
Who I'd like to hear from are the people who are actually playing BOTH system and LIKE both systems and can respond and answer legitimate questions without snark.
I'm saying this a Pathfinder GM who tried 4E at the beginning and didnt really care for it. But I would never use my limited experience to tell a recent 4E player who has been ACTUALLY PLAYING or running the game what's what. The MMO argument is old and honestly I'm not even sure that it's an insult being that MMO's were strongly influenced by table top gaming so..FULL CIRCLE.
Again civil posters who play both and can discuss without being a dick would be AWESOME.
Pleae forgive for thinking that having an outsider's perspective now and then might actually help both systems. And for the record, I don't think I mentioned the actual system itself more than once or twice, precisely because I don't know anything about it. WOTC's business practices, on the other hand, are much easier for everyone to see.
I'm just curious.
Any of the people who ARENT playing 4E, how do you expect to out argue the people who are ACTUALLY CURRENTLY PLAYING THE GAME. You can't. In fact youre making yourselves look really, really bad becasue it's pretty obvious in reading your responses to the 4E people that you dont have an idea What the hell youre talking about.
I've been in some very interesting debates on the topic, sometimes they are even reasonably civil, that have been worthwhile. Not so much today though as most of what has been going back and fourth has been very surface without really probing into any real depth on any of the topics.
Plus there are some 4E posters that don't really want to have a debate at all and are just trying to shut things down making the thread particularly acrimonious.
You I will respond too, becuse you seem to be a bit more open minded.
On the other hand, one ignores history at their own peril.
One can equally rely on it far too much.
That's where most of the correction is coming from. I think when you say "4e is an MMO" people react not only because that's what they're expecting, but also because you haven't managed to yet point to a single portion of MMO design in 4e that was genuinely accurate, and have strongly insinuated that the parts of 4e design you hold to be in keeping with an MMO are "bad" in some way.
Personally, I don't care one way or another if it's borrowed from MMOs, but the fact that many people do needs to be noted.
Such as?
Where do you think they got the model for DDI? It wasn't from table top games, card games, board games, novels, or even single player computer games. The most likely place they could have gotten it from was the MMO market. Again, this is not meant as a slam, just pointing out that similarities exist.
As for the last sarcastic bit, I apologize, my gut got ahead of my brain for a second at all the declarations of "game expert" flying around.
I'm just curious.
Any of the people who ARENT playing 4E, how do you expect to out argue the people who are ACTUALLY CURRENTLY PLAYING THE GAME. You can't. In fact youre making yourselves look really, really bad becasue it's pretty obvious in reading your responses to the 4E people that you dont have an idea What the hell youre talking about.
I've been in some very interesting debates on the topic that have been worthwhile. Not so much today though as most of what has been going back and fourth has been very surface without really probing into any real depth on any of the topics.
Plus there are some 4E posters that don't really want to have a debate at all and are just trying to shut things down making the thread particularly acrimonious.
I tend like your posts, Jeremy. They are informative without being dismissive, a rare trait on both sides of the argument. My posts in this particular thread tend to be more questions than answers largely because no else is willing to question anything, they just assume that WOTC must know best. While I don't think WOTC is bad, they do need to be questioned from time to time, as does Paizo when their work fails to reach a certain level.
Pleae forgive for thinking that having an outsider's perspective now and then might actually help both systems. And for the record, I don't think I mentioned the actual system itself more than once or twice, precisely because I don't know anything about it. WOTC's business practices, on the other hand, are much easier for everyone to see.I'm just curious.
Any of the people who ARENT playing 4E, how do you expect to out argue the people who are ACTUALLY CURRENTLY PLAYING THE GAME. You can't. In fact youre making yourselves look really, really bad becasue it's pretty obvious in reading your responses to the 4E people that you dont have an idea What the hell youre talking about.
Who I'd like to hear from are the people who are actually playing BOTH system and LIKE both systems and can respond and answer legitimate questions without snark.
I'm saying this a Pathfinder GM who tried 4E at the beginning and didnt really care for it. But I would never use my limited experience to tell a recent 4E player who has been ACTUALLY PLAYING or running the game what's what. The MMO argument is old and honestly I'm not even sure that it's an insult being that MMO's were strongly influenced by table top gaming so..FULL CIRCLE.
Again civil posters who play both and can discuss without being a dick would be AWESOME.
Listen, theory is great and all, but if I wanted to learn about carpentry? I'm more inclined to listen to the person how has ACTUALLY done it as opposed to the person who has read a book about it and thinks that theyre quailified to fully discuss it.
The map is not the territory.
When I want to know about a game or have a discussion about a game I value the opinion of people who are / have actually played the game over monday morning quarterbacks. Especially if said people can discuss it without being condescending and arrogant (for the record I'm not referring to you here).
I did say every now and then for an outsider's view, not all the time. I usually stop in only once every few monthes to see how things are changing. It just gets a bit old when I ask questions and get almost the exact same responses I got one year ago. People can't complain that 4E foes are still using the same old arguments when they are too. Overall, though, I have to say that I am impressed with how the game seems to be turning around, even if it isn't the kind of game I would play unless I was very comfortable with everyone else in the group. WOTC seems to be doing a better job at adapting their PR, and it took far longer for the ultra "Must man the walls at all costs" people to show up than it did last time I stopped in.
Where do you think they got the model for DDI? It wasn't from table top games, card games, board games, novels, or even single player computer games. The most likely place they could have gotten it from was the MMO market. Again, this is not meant as a slam, just pointing out that similarities exist.
I'll grant you the DDI is MMO inspired but that is WotC copying Blizzards business model not the actual game mechanics. Personally I hope WotC copies it even more. The constant update element of the game is one of its best features. Getting a table top RPG that is in a perpetual state of improvement is wonderful and when they, inevitably, make mistakes there is a good chance they'll fix them.
Still they could really do to take this several steps further. The feat list is huge and there are dozens of feats that are essentially outdated because new ones have come along that do the same thing but better in some manner. Nonetheless WotC has so far refused to consolidate the list down. They need to do more with the playtesting idea as well. Both in terms of putting out material before it actually becomes official (so that the fan base can take it apart and expose any flaws) and also in responding to those flaws the fan base has found.
I've commented before that, at this point, WotC is an online content provider with a publishing arm. The problem is they don't seem to believe me...I wish they would get with the program. In fact I wish they would figure out how to make us pay more to subscribe (well really make it so that more of us have to subscribe - to many people can mooch off one subscription IMO) because that might go some distance to getting them to realize their true destiny as an online content provider.
The important thing with the MMO comparison is "mimic," which is not the same as "copy." Paizo has a subscription, but it doesn't effect access to the game material. Many people have only DDI, and don't bother with the books, so for them, 4E is very much a "pay-to-play" system like any other MMO. I'm sure WOTC would prefer they buy the books as well, but like Paizo with the free SRD online, if they already have access to the information, why would they spend more to buy the book?
I've commented before that, at this point, WotC is an online content provider with a publishing arm. The problem is they don't seem to believe me...I wish they would get with the program. In fact I wish they would figure out how to make us pay more to subscribe (well really make it so that more of us have to subscribe - to many people can mooch off one subscription IMO) because that might go some distance to getting them to realize their true destiny as an online content provider.
If they did that, honestly, most of their PR and marketing woes would simply vanish. They could dedicate all of their resources in one area and get back to doing one thing really well, which is how D&D has remained on top as long as it has. Design hasn't mattered as much as focus and quality. They started losing that in the late 3.5 era, and seem to be starting to understand just what they lost finally, so we will have to wait and see how they choose to develop.
DDI is a magazine subscription with some handy tools available. If I drop my subscription right this second, or were to get "banned" from using WotC services somehow, that would not stop the game I'll be playing this evening from taking place, and in fact, would have little effect on it whatsoever.
You are absolutely correct here.
Except the "tools" that you paid for to run your game initially, the physical core rulebooks, were paid for I'm assuming as a separate transaction from your DDI subscription. So I dont know how that factors into the discussion of the DDI subscription model.
If you cancel your DDI subscription you lose access to those prized tools (not the downloaded PDF content though...) and that's that.
With my RPG and AP subscription from Paizo I have a physical copy of something so even if I cancelled my subscription RIGHT NOW I'd STILL have he physical copies of my books as well as access to the PDF copies of them.
Youre arguing apples and oranges here I think even though I think that you might have been inadvertantly baited into doing so. Pazio subscription does not equal DDI. DDI offeres more, but when you cancel the subscription you lose more. Only fair I think.
My posts in this particular thread tend to be more questions than answers largely because no else is willing to question anything
Really? When I read your post, all I see are assertions.
I'm actually surprised it has taken this long to get a 4E computer game released. The rule set was practically made for that exact use.
the subscription to Paizo and the subscription to DDI are completely different animals; they can't be compared to each other.
MMOs, where things are more fluid, and players have a bit more control over the world (ideally), the rules would port over pretty directly.
4E is very much a "pay-to-play" system like any other MMO
Design hasn't mattered as much as focus and quality.
It just gets a bit old when I ask questions and get almost the exact same responses I got one year ago. People can't complain that 4E foes are still using the same old arguments when they are too.
Maybe your position as self-described 4e foe makes it hard to have a reasonable discussion with you.
Also, arguments might help. Not just stating something, but offer evidence that proves your position. At least you ceased calling your assertions 'facts', I'll grant you that.
Youre arguing apples and oranges here I think even though I think that you might have been inadvertantly baited into doing so. Pazio subscription does not equal DDI. DDI offeres more, but when you cancel the subscription you lose more. Only fair I think.
That's what I've been trying to get across ever since someone first tried to compare the two. They are different things entirely. There is nothing wrong with either, but for a market that is used to buying a product rather than buying a service, you have to expect some backlash, especially with all the trouble WOTC has had with getting all of their promised services up and running. If they can get the VTT up and it promises what it delivers, and it sounds like they are getting very close to doing just that, that backlash will go away because suddenly the subscription is more than a magazine subscription with benefits(yes I know the CB is really good, but it is not enough by itself to justify requiring a full subscription for everyone, even with the new monster builder in there as well), but until then, they will continue to look like they simply want to get their customer's money twice, once for the books, and once for DDI. They could even break the subscription up so that if you wanted the tools, but didn't care about the magazines, or vice versa, you could get a limited subscription.
They could even break the subscription up so that if you wanted the tools, but didn't care about the magazines, or vice versa, you could get a limited subscription.
But the whole package is already cheaper than just the AP subscription Paizo offers. Less than half the price when subscribing on a yearly basis.
My posts in this particular thread tend to be more questions than answers largely because no else is willing to question anythingReally? When I read your post, all I see are assertions.
I'm actually surprised it has taken this long to get a 4E computer game released. The rule set was practically made for that exact use.the subscription to Paizo and the subscription to DDI are completely different animals; they can't be compared to each other.MMOs, where things are more fluid, and players have a bit more control over the world (ideally), the rules would port over pretty directly.4E is very much a "pay-to-play" system like any other MMODesign hasn't mattered as much as focus and quality.It just gets a bit old when I ask questions and get almost the exact same responses I got one year ago. People can't complain that 4E foes are still using the same old arguments when they are too.Maybe your position as self-described 4e foe makes it hard to have a reasonable discussion with you.
Also, arguments might help. Not just stating something, but offer evidence that proves your position. At least you ceased calling your assertions 'facts', I'll grant you that.
My ability to list evidence is only as good as the argument I am trying to reply to. Considering that at least a few people here are able to figure out what I try to get across, the fault can't be entirely in my lack of convincing evidence. I'm sure my presentation could sometimes use work, but to blame it all on my poor presentation is weak when others can figure it out just fine.
My posts in this particular thread tend to be more questions than answers largely because no else is willing to question anythingReally? When I read your post, all I see are assertions...
...Also, arguments might help. Not just stating something, but offer evidence that proves your position. At least you ceased calling your assertions 'facts', I'll grant you that.
So answer the assertion. If you think its flawed then explain why. At this point you just seem keen to make this into a personal flame fest between you and Sunshadow which won't convince anyone of anything and is clearly against the rules of conduct on this forum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A brief summary of this thread:
Post 1: Question
Post 2: Final Answer
Post 3 onward: My toy is better than your toy!, No it isn't!, Yes it is!, You're a doodie head! No u!
Honestly, what do any of you hope to accomplish here? The "lines" are drawn. The people who are arguing for/against 4th edition will not be convinced. In fact, even if you had absolute evidence clearly spelled out that your side was "right" the opposing view would simply become MORE attached to their belief thanks to the backfire effect.
Considering that at least a few people here are able to figure out what I try to get across, the fault can't be entirely in my lack of convincing evidence. I'm sure my presentation could sometimes use work, but to blame it all on my poor presentation is weak when others can figure it out just fine.
Oh, I guess I am simply too stupid to understand what you are trying to say.
...Always those underhanded insults from you. Again. Please refrain from that.
If you think its flawed then explain why.
Look at pages 6-10 of this thread. All those assertions were already disproven, not only by me but by various people.
I'm not sure repeating it would add value to the thread.
My ability to list evidence is only as good as the argument I am trying to reply to.Actually, no.
It's not the burden of the individual you're arguing against to provide you with the information you need to get your point across. It's up to you to provide it.
Note that when you say "4e is X" in some way that is vaguely stated or flatly incorrect, despite the fact that you haven't provided much of an argument to 'oppose,' you're frequently presented with facts, evidence, as well as arguments that are in direct contradiction to your assertion.
Putting the onus of making your argument on the person who's arguing against you doesn't work in your favor.
Good luck getting back many lapsed 4E players if you expect them to provide the arguments of why they should come back, which is what WOTC seems to assume is going to happen by their ignoring existing gamers not playing 4E. I agree I am not perfect, but if you respond to what you feel is a vague argument, and then completely ignore it when I respond back with what I feel is a perfectly valid example, than the onus is on you to explain just what you expect them to produce in ways of valid arguments. If you want the circle to stop, you simply stop responding.
Considering that at least a few people here are able to figure out what I try to get across, the fault can't be entirely in my lack of convincing evidence. I'm sure my presentation could sometimes use work, but to blame it all on my poor presentation is weak when others can figure it out just fine.Oh, I guess I am simply too stupid to understand what you are trying to say.
...Always those underhanded insults from you. Again. Please refrain from that.
Stupid, unwilling, just coming from a different point of view. If you want to see underhanded insults, go right ahead, but bear in mind I did accept my share of the blame at the same time, so I must have been insulting myself as well.
A brief summary of this thread:
Post 1: Question
Post 2: Final Answer
Post 3 onward: My toy is better than your toy!, No it isn't!, Yes it is!, You're a doodie head! No u!Honestly, what do any of you hope to accomplish here?
4E is a great toy.
3E is a great toyPF is a great toy.
Rubic's Cube is a great toy.
PF completely fails a providing the fun that Rubic's Cube provides. It doesn't make PF even slightly less great. It just means you have held it up to a completely inapplicable standard.
It gets more complex when comparing 3E/PF/4E. 3E and PF are very much from the same mold. But 4E does a really poor job of delivering the fun the *I* achieved from 3E from years and continue to achieve with PF. That doesn't make it any less of a great toy. But it was never intended to provide what I want, so that is just a bad standard.
There is a ton of overlap in what the play experience of an RPG can be. So when someone says that they play 4E exactly the way they played 3E, I completely believe them. I'm certain they are right. But when they therefore conclude that 4E does everything that 3E did and for everyone, they are wrong. That is a very common short-sighted assessment. I assure you that two group could switch from PF mid AP and convert everything to 4E. And one group could find no meaningful change and another group could find that everything that was great about the game was suddenly missing. These are not incompatible outcomes. And 4E and PF both remain great toys, just like Rubic's Cube.
I'd even say that 3E does a BETTER job of providing the 4E style game than 4E does of providing what I consider a 3E style game. So it completely makes sense that there will be a lot of people who love 4E who also liked 3E, while the reverse is a lot less common. 4E is, obviously, still much better at a 4E style. But 3E is decent. 4E is not up to that standard when it comes to providing what I want.
Great toys.
Very different.
I would again like to point out that I refrain as much as possible from commenting on the system itself, resticting myself mostly to how and why WOTC chooses to do what they do. I can say with absolute certainty that when it came out, the game played like and felt like an MMO in all of its aspects, whether it does now, I don't know, but the comparison was certainly valid when it was released, and the business model aspect still is, irregardless of where they actually copied it from. It's not a perfect comparison, but more things match than don't.
Who I'd like to hear from are the people who are actually playing BOTH system and LIKE both systems and can respond and answer legitimate questions without snark.
I'm saying this a Pathfinder GM who tried 4E at the beginning and didnt really care for it. But I would never use my limited experience to tell a recent 4E player who has been ACTUALLY PLAYING or running the game what's what. The MMO argument is old and honestly I'm not even sure that it's an insult being that MMO's were strongly influenced by table top gaming so..FULL CIRCLE.
Again civil posters who play both and can discuss without being a dick would be AWESOME.
*raises hand tentatively* I've played and enjoyed Pathfinder ever since my buddy brought over the Rise of the Runelords AP; Chapter 1: Burnt Offerings. It was such a great time and fun characters and an interesting storyline. Back then, we were still using v3.5 rules but set in Golarion. As we moved from chapter to chapter (we're up to 3 now), we've converted our classes mostly to Pathfinder rules. And while our characters changed somewhat over the course, the game and fun have remained the same.
Switching back to 4E and related products, I've been the one to DM/GM it the most out of our group. It's been equally as fun and it is also a conversion of characters from v3.5 to 4E. Not a simple task, espically with only the limited books available at the time, but fun none the less. Also, we just started a new campaign where I don't DM and it's a pre-made adventure (H1: Keep on the Shadowfell). And.....it's still a lot of fun. After 3 sessions (6 encounters) we've still not gained that 2nd level and 1 character perished (poor Swordmage) but this goes to show that the game is rather on-par with other versions of D&D in power and character's are not invincible.
So I do like both, yet for different reasons. A large part of that is because 1). I don't take anything personally in regards to this hobby. Those who've taken personal insult at WotC decisions really, really need to take things less seriously. 2). I enjoy both simulationism and narrative play. I can usually get a little more of both with 4E but I know the rules of v3.5/PF far far better and I find it more of a fun challenge to build characters and NPCs of v3.5/PF. 3). Neither 4E or PF play (I mean literally, when your at the table with friends) like an MMO or video game. To think otherwise is to not understand the mechanics of 4E, not to have played a good portion of MMOs (I played WoW for 7 months), or be swayed by anti-4E people based on limited play when 4E debued.
To further expand on my feelings about 4E and MMOs, I have to give credit where credit is due. I do feel 4E was influenced by MMOs, I do feel it's easier to make comparions due to it's display and visual keys, I do feel the artwork is more inline with that of current MMOs, and I do see that in terms of game-mechanics, it uses "Game speak" within the rules (such as Burst 1 withing 10 squars). That, however, is where I feel the comparisons end. Maybe that's too Game-ish for them, but just because earlier editions and PF don't use that Terminology doesn't mean that the mechanics aren't still there.
irregardless
What does this word mean? I know "Regardless" means "Without regard to", ir- as a prefix generally means the opposite or without. "Irreverent" is the opposite of reverent for example.
Does irregardless mean "without without regard to" thus meaning "with regard to"?