Steerpike7's page

527 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 527 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I waited a few days. Things seem to be working fine now. No more 404 errors I was getting from remote3. Thanks for making this bundle available. It's an incredible value.

Been getting all 404 file not found errors since this morning. Variety of devices, operating systems, browsers. Any update on that issue? It was mentioned above but hasn't been addressed.

Hey guys, just FYI things on my end have gone from a slow process to files not downloading at all after the Personalization step, or else the download failing midway through (three consecutive attempts).

Just passing along the info. Thanks for making this Humble Bundle available - great material incorporated into it (and it appears my excitement is shared by a large number of others).

Sebastrd wrote:
Laugh all you want, but when 5E is a commercial success I'll accept your apology.

The assertion being made 'now' is no less ridiculous whether it is a success or not. There simply is not enough information to say that 5e is "shaping up" to be a huge success. Or that it is "shaping up" to be a huge flop. It is doing neither at this point.

Momar wrote:

Just to be clear, nobody actually knows the exact market shares or total sales or anything of that nature?

I think most people are extrapolating from what we can find out about sales etc. To me, the WotC actions around the 5e announcement, and the clear indication they're specifically interested in recovering fans, tells me the loss of marketshare is viewed as substantial by WotC.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:

I personally don't think it's a bad thing, though. I like the idea of having two (relative) giants at the forefront of the industry.

Yeah, I think that's good too. Competition in the industry is better than having a 500-pound gorilla dominating everything. In that respect, I also hope 5e is a good game. I don't harbor any ill-will to WotC. I don't like 4e. I have friends who like it. If 5e is good (in my opinion) I'll play it, and I'm sure I'll be playing Pathfinder and others as well.

Scott Betts wrote:

But it does have a bearing on whether overall sales volume dropped, which is what was being claimed. The relative market share was just being used to support that claim.

Yes, it is important to that determination. I think the relative market share between the two is the more telling statistic. I suspect WotC is not happy with how that picture looks.

There is information that we're simply not going to have, but it seems to me that the timing and tone of the WotC 5e announcement is very good evidence that they are not at all pleased with the current market for 4e.

Whether the hobby market as a whole shrunk or not has no bearing on the relative market share of WotC and Pathfinder. If the market as a whole shrunk, then Pathfinder's market shrunk as well. If Pathfinder's market share is greater than WotC, then 4e failed in that regard as WotC went from dominating the market to being in second place. Honestly, even if Paizo only put a sizable dent in WotC's market share and WotC was still in second place, it would still rate as a bit of a debacle for WotC given the market dominance they had before. There no way a reasonable person can put a good spin on what has happened to WotC and D&D under 4e. No matter how you view it, it is a decline from D&D's previous position in the market.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

As far as the "doesn't feel like D&D" argument is concerned, I totally agree with that. 4e is not D&D. It's a different game.

I think people pretend to misunderstand this sentiment on purpose. It isn't hard to grasp. 4e has the brand name, but it is different enough that many consider it more like a new game.

If Ferrari released a $10,000 car meant to compete with Kia's base model, it would have the Ferrari brand on it, but I doubt anyone would have a problem understanding just what an existing Ferrari owner means when he says "it's just not a Ferrari."

Sebastrd wrote:
We can see the signs of 5E shaping up to be a huge success.

This is really a ridiculous assertion to make at this stage in the game. I hope 5e is successful, but there is no basis at this point in time for saying it is shaping up to be either a success or a failure.

Your explanation about hatred of WotC and loyalty to Paizo is also misplaced. A very small minority may feel that way. Most people I know who play Pathfinder do so because they prefer the game to 4e, and they are ambivalent toward WotC. If WotC puts out a good game, they'll likely buy it. I know I will.

The kind of broad statements you are making to characterize an entire fan base are nonsense, imo.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

What I find hilarious Steerpike is that many of us have been making the point that 4e has been a clear markeplace failure for at least a year, using the same argument that you've used here, but believe me, there has been plenty of argument about that, and probably still will be.

Yeah, that's true - I've seen a lot of that argument made for some time now, and anecdotally it backs up my experience. Even the fans of 4e in my local groups were getting tired of it a little over a year ago and migrating to other games.

I agree regarding the 5e announcements and corresponding statements. It's about as close an admission to failure as you're likely to see. Hasbro/WotC clearly doesn't consider the game a success and is eager to move on to the next iteration.

Rockheimr wrote:

Hey, let's be clear, if 4e had doubled WOTC's D&D sales by drawing in the hoped for WOW-rush as planned, I'd be the first to grudgingly concede it was a great success for WOTC. I would naturally add the success saddened me, as I think the edition was an enormous step in the wrong direction and I certainly wouldn't play it, however I would accept I was clearly in a dying minority and it had obviously been the right commercial decision to take.

Yes. I think we can separate two issues here:

1) I don't like 4e. I ran it, played in it, even demoed it at a gaming store. I just don't like it - I think it moves in the wrong direction, and for me it is just a bad RPG. That's all my subjective impression of it. I think enough other people share my subjective impression that it is at least part of the explanation (a significant part) as to why the game failed.

2) Everything mentioned previously about loss of market share, the brand, etc. objectively indicates that the game was a failure in that sense. This is separate and apart from whether the game itself it actually any good. As I said above, good products can fail. It is clear that even WotC/Hasbro have realized the game failed, and I suspect they've known it for some time. They want to regain lost ground with 5e.

Point #1 can be argued to death (and has been). I don't see much room for arguing point #2.

Marshall Jansen wrote:

I wasn't referring to the OGL, but to the actual IP... Krynn, Greyhawk, Planescape, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms. You know, the stuff the person I was responding to specifically called out that he'd hope Paizo could buy 'on the cheap' as soon as 5e imploded.

Ah, I hear you. Thanks for clarifying.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marshall Jansen wrote:

Colossal failure of 5e is MUCH more likely to have Hasbro shelve everything, putting all of the licenses out of reach of anyone using them, be it WotC, Paizo, or whoever.

They can't put the OGL out of reach.

Rockheimr wrote:

Now, again, do you accept 4e was a failure or not?

I'd say it was objectively a failure, so does it matter if a given individual accepts it? Clearly Hasbro/WotC isn't happy with how it performed.

Other companies in the industry would be happy with the 4e numbers, but WotC isn't most other companies. They charged into 4e with the pre-eminent brand in the industry and the lion's share of the market. They are limping out of it with a fraction of their previous fan base, damage to the goodwill of the brand among many of the lost fans, and having lost their number one position in the market to a third-party licensee.

If you're running any business and you look at the before and after picture, you're not happy. It was a failure. That doesn't have to be a comment on the game itself (good product can fail), but in this case I think the bad product was a substantial part of the failure.

How long was D&D the number one brand in the industry prior to 4e? A little shy of 30 years?

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

I think the anti-WotC crowd is that way regardless of their preferred game. It's possible, if only just, that 5E might change their minds. But if it doesn't, WotC really hasn't lost anything.

As far as negativity goes, I think it's pretty stupid to be negative about something that hasn't happened yet. At least wait to see what WotC does before you go off on it, people.

I, for one, am looking forward to it. And I honestly hope they win me back.

Not so, at least in my case. I'm not anti-WotC, but I do think 4e is awful. What WotC did with 4e was make me indifferent to them. Prior to 4e, I had an emotional connection to the D&D brand. I'd been playing it a long time. Now, I don't have that connection. If 5e is very good, I will buy it and play it. But if it tanks, I won't give it a second thought. I'm just not invested in the brand like I was before.

I hope 5e is a good game, does well, and draws even more people into the hobby. If it is only a minor improvement over 4e, I'll stick with the games I play now.

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

It's an even worse failure when you consider the respective advertising budgets of WotC and Paizo, not to mention the brand recognition.

Yep. They squandered a lot of goodwill and market share with 4e. I'm sure WotC has realized this for some time, though it is only with the announcement of 5e that people at WotC are making statements in this direction. Given the relative market power between Paizo and WotC, it wouldn't have been much of a contest if WotC had a game that more people wanted to play. Instead, it looks like the market favors the Pathfinder system (at least as between 4e and Pathfinder), and WotC is trying to figure out how to regain market dominance. I think hanging on to a substantial portion of 4e in any form would be a good way to ensure that they fail to do so.

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
The rule of 5 is right out in this situation. It was less than a year between 4E's August 2007 announcment and its June 2008 arrival, and I have little doubt that 5E will be out before the end of 2012, or shortly into 2013. They have obviously been working on 5E for a while now (long enough they had a preliminary playtest with outsiders in December, and have asked people to sign up for open playtesting along with the announcement).

Yes. There is no reason to announce this now if they're planning to wait until the 5th year. All it would do is harm the ongoing sales of 4e. I expect they're going to want to release 5e as soon as possible.

Carl Cascone wrote:

One of the reasons I play D&D is because of the class system. When I want to play a game that is classless, I have a huge book on the bottom of my bookshelf called HERO system. It does classless really well.

Yeah, this is why they'll never move away from classes in D&D. I like classless games, but to me the class system is a fundamental part of what defines D&D. If they abandon that they'll really be moving toward a system that is D&D in name only.

WhiteTiger wrote:

I'd like to see classes completely gone.

I think classless systems are interesting and can be a lot of fun. I think classes are so fundamental to what people consider to be a core property of D&D that they'll never move away from it.

WhiteTiger wrote:

The announcement to me speaks volumes in that they essentially admit by default that 4e was NOT the "majority's" cup of tea and we desperately need to do something to re-spark interest. I do give any company a certain amount of respect when they come out and say "oops, we made a mistake" and we are going to try and fix it.

Yes, I think this is the case. I think 4e failed to meet WotC's expectations. It is one thing to look at the numbers and say "Well, it is second behind Pathfinder." But you have to keep things in context. If I self-publish a book and sell 10,000 copies of it, that's a runaway success. If Stephen King sells 10,000 copies of a book, he tanked. The sales figures for 4e, and whether it is in second place or what have you, is not important. The fact that the edition cost them 1st place is a huge failure and has to be cause for concern. The statements surrounding the announcement of 5e are clearly meant to address that concern head on.

I think they'll have to abandon a lot of the underlying philosophy of 4e to adequately address the concerns, but we'll see. Maybe WotC will surprise me.

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

I think even a modular game would require everyone involved to know which parts are in use. I imagine it would be a DM's decision, since he would set up the game. Kind of like house ruling things.

And if they included the power system in a modular format, you could simply not use that part.

True as well, but I still don't think this will be easy to pull off in a way that appeals to everyone. You've still got to bridge the gap between underlying design philosophies. Are people who prefer Pathfinder or 3.X going to buy a whole new edition from WotC, just to use primarily the modular parts that come from 3.X? Just to get maybe a few modular pieces of 4e they can throw into their game? I doubt it. I don't think it is good from a marketing standpoint to go into it to release core books with the idea that large portions of them won't be applicable to a given group. I suppose they have two problems: 1) making this modular idea actually work; and 2) convincing people from both camps that they should by the new modular version that replicates the game they are already enjoying in a new edition, rather than simply continuing to play their existing game.

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

I don't think they plan to "marry" anything. I think a modular system is being developed, where you can use whichever elements you wish in your game. The result will probably have powers, rituals, spells, skills, feats, and who knows what else they might dredge up from the older editions? A mix-and-match rules system might also be in the offing (for example, you might or might not use Attacks of Opportunity - it would be written in such a way that it could be excluded as a unit).

True, but from some of the quotes I've seen it gave the impression that people wanting to use these various aspects can all be sitting at the same table playing together. Given the mechanical differences, and even differing design philosophies and assumptions underlying the various editions, I think this will be very difficult to pull off.

I'd like to see something that is highly adaptable, and that allows for a framework around which a group can build their game. If they include things like the powers system from 4e, a lot of the people they are trying to entice back will be put off. If they don't include them, 4e fans may be put off. If they have a system where some players at the table use them and others do not...well, I think it will be difficult to make that work well.

Guess we won't really have a good idea until more info comes out.

I think the title to this thread embodies the feelings of a lot of people with respect to the prospect of 5e. Obviously it doesn't apply to people who love 4e, but WotC even realizes there is a substantial portion of the fan base for which this is not the case, and 5e looks to be an attempt to draw some of those people back. So the "once bitten, twice shy" sentiment is a reality WotC has to deal with, and arguing with it from the standpoint of a 4E fan makes no sense. If you're an ardent 4e fan, WotC has your business already. They're in the process of trying to get back the business they lost with 4e (while keeping the 4e business as well). I think they've set quite a challenge before themselves.

Asphere wrote:

I don't want to see any button mashing powers with cool downs that interrupt verisimilitude, especially for non-spell casters. If my fighter is only allowed to do a specific ability a few times a day I would like it to make sense without resorting to explanations like: it has limited use because in combat there would only be a few times that the opportunity would present itself that would allow you to use this ability but you as a player get to decide when that is. No thanks. I want to be able to use mundane abilities even when it is stupid to do so and doomed to fail.

Yes, this would be nice. The whole "powers" concept from 4e needs to be thrown in the trash bin. And they need to move back toward more distinctive classes, rather than the cookie-cutter approaches where classes are functionally similar but just flavored differently.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not thrilled to see people from the 4e design team on board. I think it is the worst edition of D&D to come along, and the design team's attitude toward players of previous editions didn't sit well with me either.

I'll keep an eye on 5e, however. If they release something great, then I'll buy it. Short of that, I'll stick with Pathfinder and the other games I play. D&D no longer has the brand loyalty/connection it did for me prior to 4e, so I don't have any kind of emotional investment in liking 5e when it comes out.

The stated intentions are a bit worrisome, just because I think they'll be extremely difficult to pull off. There are some fundamental reasons why some like or dislike 4e as compared to previous editions. Trying to "marry" those differences into a single system that appeals to both groups is more likely to alienate both groups.

But my curiosity is aroused, and as I said above I'll be keeping an eye on 5e.

Vic Wertz wrote:

In general, I'd ask yourself this: If an average Pathfinder RPG player picks up your product, will he say it doesn't feel like Pathfinder anymore? Or if he picks up a Pathfinder RPG-compatible adventure, would he have a lot of difficulties using it in conjunction with your product?

Thanks, Vic. Those are excellent points, and you've brought it home in this final paragraph. It gives me something to think about. It will certainly feel like Pathfinder, and by and large you could pick up a Pathfinder RPG-compatible product and use it with little difficulty, but things like the spells available to monsters and NPCs, and how they are cast, would be different and have to be adjusted on the fly or taken into consideration ahead of time.

Good food for thought there, and I appreciate the repy.

Didn't see a forum specifically for discussing the licenses surrounding the logo and/or OGL, so I'm putting this here.

Have a couple of projects in the works. The first is simply a rewrite of an adventure I already have for sale under OGL. Putting out a Pathfinder compatible version of it, and I don't see an issue there.

The second project, however, is an alternate rules system for magic for d20/OGL and I'd like to make it compatible for use with Pathfinder. That said, it's a fairly dramatic revamp of how magic and spellcasting work, taking a much darker and more dangerous slant on things.

Use of the compatibility logos requires that the products maintain compatiblity with Pathfinder. My question is, how far outside of the default ruleset can you get and still be considered compatible? My system would work with Pathfinder, but all of the rules regarding how spell casting works (memorization, spells per day, spells that can be cast, classes that can cast) are altered.

You can drop these new rules into the game rather seamlessly, but I want to know whether this is still considered a product that is "compatibility" for purposes of the license.


I suggest Castles and Crusades as well. It has a 1e/2e feel but isn't a clone of those systems.

And for those here who enjoy the system, I set up a Google Group for fans of C&C. Everyone is welcome:

C&C Google Group

I like C&C the best, because even though it captures the feel of older versions like 1e, it's not really a clone. It's more of it's own system, though I can very easily pull my 1e source material and adventures into it.

OSRIC looks interesting, but appears to me to be more of a clone. I already have all the old 1e books, etc. so if I want to play that, I'll just use those. Not sure I'd be getting much of an advantage from OSRIC.

But right now my group is playing C&C.

Seems to me most of the talk about who constitutes 'active D&D players' is nonsense. Saying it is 'almost certainly' one group or another while at the same time saying there is no way to know is poorly thought out.

The problem with saying there are more of one group than another is at least two-fold:

1. Many people play multiple editions; and

2. There's no way to quantify active groups.

I still play all of the editions. An interesting personal fact though - most of the people I started playing D&D with back in the 1980s still play actively and most of them never ventured past 1e and 2e. How do you quantify that?

The largest local game I'm aware of is a first edition game that has been running weekly (except for the occasional interruption) since the early 1980s. So that's the biggest single group of active D&D players I know around here (and I know quite a few groups) and none of them bought any product after 2e and most of them never bought any product after 1e.

Some of this group includes players who STARTED playing D&D well after the release of 3e, and yet have never played anything besides 1e.

I don't mean to imply that this group is representative of the norm, but I still know of a number of groups that I used to play with, spread out in California, Washington, and Missouri, who play 1e and have never played anything else. Apart from minis, these people haven't bought any D&D products since 1e.

So how do you quantify that? It's all very easy to say in a forum that it is 'almost certain' that most active D&D players are playing 4e, but the fact is the person who makes that statement has absolutely no idea if it is true or not. It may be true. It may not be.

Initially liked it OK. The novelty wore off after about three months of regular play. Still break it out now and again.

Played a 12th level game of 4e the other night, because most of our games had been in the lower levels. The movements of monsters on the battle mat under the control of player's 'powers' was so comical that we quit halfway through the adventure.

4e seems ok at lower levels, though there are aspects that rubbed me the wrong way.

As you go up in levels, the game becomes a sort of farce in my view, where the metagaming aspects and nonsense on the battle mat make it difficult to take the game seriously.

Obviously, ymmv. We have one guy in our group who seems to like it a lot, and my recommendation would be if you have any interest in it at all to simple try it for yourself.

I don't know about this idea.

I guess if you have a customer base that is looking for this sort of thing, then great. But putting a 'first edition feel' into 4e seems likely to require so many changes to 4e that the 4e fans won't like it, but will necessarily keep enough of 4e that the people who dislike 4e won't care for it. Who is the target audience here and how big is it?

I like the first edition feel concept, and I think Necromancer has done a great job with it previously. I'm looking forward to seeing that continue with respect to Pathfinder.

First Edition feel in 4e? I don't know. Just by way of example, the abilities in 4e that allow players to move monsters around the board, pull monsters back to them, or otherwise simply manipulate minis like a board game would be comical in any system that purports to retain a first edition feel. But I hardly think that aspect of 4e can be done away with - it is so integral to the system.

Yeah...well, good luck I suppose (personally I'd rather see the energy spent on Pathfinder). My main concern with this would be a hybrid that doesn't make either group (4e fans and older edition fans) happy.

Your assumptions are all false DM_Blake. What you fail to realize is I have been using such a rule in D&D for multiple campaigns and many, many groups since the early 1980s. Ranged specialists still do just fine in the game, it just adds an extra touch of danger and realism to how combat is adjudicated.

I posted here because I am interested in finding out how others who use such a rule handle it because I am always open to better ways of doing things.

You, on the other hand, seem to subscribed to the idea that if someone isn't playing the way you like or want them to, then they are playing wrong. So I'm not sure why you bothered to respond to this thread in the first place. It is clear from my initial post that I was looking for ideas from fellow gamers who employ a rule for shooting into melee, not for pronouncements from people who think their way is the only valid way of playing. Thanks anyway, though.

DM_Blake wrote:

Archers and others who rely primarily on ranged weapons are already penalized enough.

This is a poor way of looking at the issue IMHO. In my group. we're more concerned with what makes sense. You are looking at it strictly from a metagaming standpoint. I prefer not to do that.

Yes, a melee player could accidentally hit another melee player. Because of this, if at all possible they tend to give each other a little space. At the same time this reduces the chance of a ranged person hitting a friendly because there are less friendlies on the same monster.

Abraham spalding wrote:

my only concern is some DM using this as some means to justify gimping an archer character. Say the DM saying that an attack actually hits the guys fighter friend on a regular basis (something I've seen happen before in 3.0. No matter the feats involved, size of the opponents or anything else the DM in question always gave you a flat 50% chance to hit your friend... even on a crit!). Personally I would like to see precise shot figure into this some too.

Beyond those things not a bad idea.

Yeah. Precise shot figures into my current method because it reduces the penalty and therefore reduces the chance of a miss in the first place.

Modera wrote:
We normally state that if you crit fail on an ranged attack into melee, you hit one of the other combatants. It's not THAT bad at mid and high levels, and adds a sense of danger.

Yeah, that sounds kind of like what Warmaster is doing. I like the simplicity of it, but don't like that it doesn't take into account the friendly targets armor or other protection.

Gives me some things to think about though. I appreciate the discussion.

DougyP wrote:

My DM tends to do this, but there doesn't seem to be a set rule that he follows for when you are going to hit someone friendly. As a result, I'm scared to death shoot rays into melee with my wizard :(.

I don't like it in the first place to be honest. Give the -4 to hit, leave it at that. It doesn't really add any enjoyment to the game, and just penalizes people who play a ranged class in a way that melee classes don't get penalized.

Actually, it does add to our enjoyment of the game, or I wouldn't have posed the question. YMMV.

It makes sense that this risk is there, rather than having ranged classes sit back and carelessly fire arrows into groups that include their friends.

Dorje Sylas wrote:

I'll see if I can find the exact rule in the old 3.0 SRD when I have the chance, or maybe its in the modern SRD.

Thanks. I had forgotten about that. I think we used the variant for a while, then decided it didn't account for people beyond the target, so we abandoned it. I'll go look at it again.

WarmasterSpike wrote:
I used to ...back in the day. A natural 1 was a botch just as a natural 20 was a crit. You confirmed the botch by missing on the second roll. So a botch on a missle fire attempt resulted in a friendly fire incident. It worked fine, wasnt to heavy handed to the point where players where wrecking each other and actually provided some good RP on occasion. My current group doesn't do botches so on the rare times I have been DM I never implemented it.

Thanks Warmaster. That is certainly a quick way to adjudicate it. The system I currently use requires a second attack roll against the friendy's AC, so their armor and protection are taking into consideration. It sounds like you do (or did) an automatic friendly hit on a roll of one, right?


My thoughts are as follows:

I like the idea of pulp swords-and-sorcery campaign settings, I think to buy one it would really have to stand out amongst the 3.X settings that are already out there. As it is, I'll cobble stuff together from the Conan RPG for use in my games. Settings are always interesting, but these days there are so many to choose from it really takes something special and intriguing to make me go for it.

As for oriental campaign settings, my interest in that is limited, though I know a number of people who would love it.

If you already have best-selling releases, it seems like revising those to work with Pathfinder might not be a bad idea. The question that comes to mind is "How much revision is necessary?" And the reason I ask is that if the modification is slight and a DM can do it on the fly (more or less), then it seems like people who already own the 3.5 versions are going to be less likely to buy the Pathfinder versions.

But on the whole, I prefer things like what you've already got in your 3.5 releases - rules for things like ships, chasing, airships, or what have you.

I've never quite liked the idea that when you shoot into melee you have no chance of hitting a friendly target. It stands to reason if you miss badly enough you could hit your friend, particularly in the chaos of battle and exchange of blows that takes place during a round.

Our group has employed a house rule for this, and I was kind of hoping Pathfinder would put a variant rule in place. So my questions are:

1. Any change Pathfinder will implement rules for this sort of thing. Seems unlikely based on what I saw in the beta but I am curious; and

2. Do any of you house-rule this, and if so do you mind sharing your house-rules? I would like to consider possibilities for adjudicating this sort of things.


Scott Betts wrote:
TigerDave wrote:
It’s like a textual version of a bodybuilding contest – each quote flexing and posing in an attempt to outdo the next.
I remember when Complete Mage was released it had little quotations peppered throughout the book - each arcane spellcasting iconic was given one, and they all took subtle (or not-so-subtle) digs at the others. Invariably cheesy, but kind of a neat look at the interplay between the various classes. The sorcerer one read, "Power? Wizards know nothing of power. Yes, they have their rituals and books, but take that away and what remains? They only use magic. I am magic. Take from me and you will only invoke my wrath. Then, and only then will you see real power."

Thanks for the quick impression. I'm going to pick up a copy...looking forward to the half-orc and also the new rituals in particular.

Scott Betts wrote:
Steerpike7 wrote:
Hard to believe this long after launch people are still so over-sensitive to the slightest criticism of 4e.
Hard to believe that this long after launch people are still making an effort to stop into the 4th Edition forum for the sole purpose of explaining exactly why they don't like 4th Edition. I can't imagine the thundering rage that 4th Edition players would encounter if they spent this much effort explaining why the hate 3rd Edition (or PFRPG!) on the Pathfinder-specific boards. The 4th Edition players are too busy enjoying themselves on their own sub-forum.

I don't see anything wrong with it. I like both editions and I'm happy to discuss the pros and cons of each. The only problematic people are those who can't seem to take it if someone makes a criticism. Grow up already.

Hard to believe this long after launch people are still so over-sensitive to the slightest criticism of 4e.

I'm glad some people are enjoying it. I'm also glad people are still enjoying 3.5E. Around here the 3.5E groups still dominate, and it looks like 3.5E materials are keeping pace with 4e in online sales, so it looks to me like both versions have a good player base. So no matter which you play you'll find players and materials by and large.

tadkil wrote:

My suspicion is that 4E has done ok. Not great, but Ok.

Two out of three of the Barnes and Nobles in my area(NE Atlanta) are not adding any new product. One is still carrying the new books but that is because the manager is a gamer. Likewise, the Borders I go to has scaled back orders of new prodcut more as a result of inventory concerns and a poor economy that anything else.

All three of the gameshops I frequent are are selling a steady flow of 4E stuff, but the are also selling the Warhammer RPG stuff. Pathfinder is present at two of the stores, and doing steady business at both.

I also remember that 2.0 had pretty much died six months after the launch of 3.0. None of the folks I knew who played 2.0, stayed with it after the launch of 3.0. I'd say about 1/3 of the folks I know who tried 4.0, are back playing 3.5. Roughly a third play both. Roughly a third are now 4.0 only.

Looks like the market bifurcated. Assuming that I am not waaaaaay out there on the bell curve, then a fair amount of folks are still playing 3.5 and will be for quite awhile. Assuming that only 10% of current 4E gamers migrate back to 3.5/OGL gaming, that's still a bloody chunk of folks going retro and not consuming 4E product.

Is is enough to sink 4E? No. Is it enough to cause a product to miss its targets at launch? Yes.

But, this is all my best, but educated, guess. We don't and won't know, unless somebody really wants to get guerilla and go see if some analyst has been able to look at the performance of the prodcut line as part of rating Hasbro's stock.

Me, I am happy there are two interesting games to play, and great people to play them with.

This post more or less coincides with my own feelings. I will be happy to see 4E continue to be successful, whether I decide to play it again in the future or not.

Arcesilaus wrote:

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that, unless you want a whole lot of wild speculation, based on nothing (as you have seen so far), you really need to take a question like this to WotC, flaming or no.


I don't think my answers there would be better...I think they'd be worse, honestly.

I've found the thread interesting and most people who have responded here seem sincere in their answers, which I appreciate.

Scott Betts wrote:

Again, localities mean nothing, there are just as many (if not more) stories of gamers who don't know anyone sticking with D&D 3.5. Sales numbers and event participation are the two reliable metrics, and the only data we have so far is remarkably good for 4th Edition.

And just a prediction, but all the doomsayers here are going to be rather surprised when further sales numbers are released that continue to be strong.

I understand that some of you want to see 4th Edition fail just so your take on "how D&D should be" is vindicated, but that's petty and dumb. Imagine if someone started a thread in Pathfinder General entitled "State of Pathfinder?" filled with nothing but people recounting anecdotal stories of how "everyone I know" is switching to 4th Edition and no one is finding Pathfinder worthwhile.

Clearly you haven't read my posts with any degree of comprehension.

Thanks for all the responses, everyone. Of course, what is posted here is largely anecdotal, but it seems to mesh in large part with my own experience of people moving back to previous editions or other systems. Guess we'll see how it goes when the PHB2 comes out.

odanuki wrote:
I haven't even tried it yet - all of the D&D players around here are sticking w/ 3.5/PFRPG.

Ah. Well I figured in the 4E forums...

It's worth trying, IMHO. It's a bit more metagamey, and I felt like a strategic miniatures game was breaking out in my RP sessions, but if you shift your mindset a bit it works. I had a blast with it early on, but unlike older editions, for some reason, it's allure has faded with me.

Still I recommend giving it a shot and seeing for yourself.

1 to 50 of 527 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>