|
The first (role-play) is the overall excellence of DM & Player quality with respect to storytelling, character development, plot weaving, representing the d & d mileau, the amount of "personal" depth put into the game, and the amount of perceived "personal" revelation received from actual play.Maybe this is my problem. I never got that from D&D. It was all about killing things and taking their stuff. It was not until I ventured into other games that I found storytelling, character development and plot weaving.
Alas, I feel sorry for you. If you have not had a DM that turned D&D into a magical world...then you missed out on the fun.
Heres a cookie :D
Alas, I feel sorry for you. If you have not had a DM that turned D&D into a magical world...then you missed out on the fun.
Will you run a game for me?
|
|
and some Mongoose's Conan Crush! Root Beer for later.
That's funny, I have some cola from Mongoose as well. It's called Flaming Cobra GSL Super Cola. Oh....and I can choose to have some Necro Cream Soda if the mood strikes me. Even better, I can depend on my Goodman Lemon and Lime when I want something basic and deliciously straightforward.
You know what's great? This time around I don't have to worry about a bunch of guys who don't know how to make soda flooding the market with their less than stellar brands. I know I have a quality soda choice right out of the gate, or at least come Oct. 1. ;)
Sure, I am a little bothered I can't get Pazio Cola exactly the way I want it. Fortunately it is easy enough to alter Pazio Cola to my taste. And if push comes to shove I can always partake of Paizo's amazing line of snacks and chips. They taste good with whatever brand drink you choose to partake.
Isn't choice grand?
|
I don't see any of the big third party publishers sticking with the "pure" 3.5 OGL.
They're not sticking with "pure" 3.5 OGL because now's the time to carve out that market segment for themselves. New 3.5 material is dead, gone, bye-bye. You can't get the manuals from WotC because it would be downright stupid of them to compete with their own product.
On the other hand, 3PPs are willing to continue looking at their OWN game because then the manuals CAN be published, and even though actual 3.5 material from WotC is not available, you won't actually NEED that material to continue playing the game. Thus why Pathfinder is often referred to as 3.75, because it continues the tradition of the 3.5 core mechanics but allows Pathfinder to continue manufacturing NEW product.
This one's not rocket science.
|
High level play in 3.5 is incredibly slow. That is a flaw created by the mechanics.I understand that you do not see the flaws as flaws but many, including the folks that created 3e, have come out and admitted that the flaws exist.Can you give the objective definition that differentiates between a mechanic that someone might not like and an objective flaw.
Has anyone here tried high lvl play in 4E with an elite or solo monster? Its just as slow as 3.5 if not slower.
|
|
I understand that you do not see the flaws as flaws but many, including the folks that created 3e, have come out and admitted that the flaws exist. Heck - Monte Cook has made a cottage industry out of fixing the game.
Talking about makers of a game system admiting flaws
Mearls actually commented about skill challenges being borked:
Quote:
Hey all,
We had a meeting about skill challenges on (cue creepy music) Friday the 13th. We came to a few conclusions on what happened, what our intent is, and what we're going to do about it.
The system went through several permutations as we worked on it, and I think there are some disconnects between the final text, our intentions, and how playtesters and internal designers use skill challenges.
So, we've been listening and reading threads and figuring out some stuff on our end.
The system went through several permutations as we worked on it, and I think there are some disconnects between the final text, our intentions, and how playtesters and internal designers use skill challenges.
Damn flip-floppers!
Has anyone here tried high lvl play in 4E with an elite or solo monster? Its just as slow as 3.5 if not slower.High level play in 3.5 is incredibly slow. That is a flaw created by the mechanics.I understand that you do not see the flaws as flaws but many, including the folks that created 3e, have come out and admitted that the flaws exist.Can you give the objective definition that differentiates between a mechanic that someone might not like and an objective flaw.
This is not the place for objective assessment, sir.
Why the adhominem attack? Seriously, the accusation that people who choose to play 4e are some kind of brainwashed cultist is getting old, and frankly it shows a complete lack of decorum.<Takes sip from cup.>
How's that grape Kool-Aid you got from WotC? Glad you like it. Me, nah, I can't stand the stuff anymore.
<Takes another sip>
Get off your high-horse. His "especially once they switch to 4e" crack against Pathfinder wasn't an attack? Get real.
I didn't say anything about people who choose to play 4e. I knocked CourtFool's specific comment and nothing more.
I didn't take a shot at YOU, or any other 4e fan, in any way. I read your posts, and while I might not agree with 100% of what you said, you were at least making a case for your argument. What was CourtFool's comment adding to the conversation as written? I made an attempt at a tongue-in-cheek swipe at him. Yes, I admit it, I was poking some fun at him. Are you really going to make the argument that his comment was a well-reasoned, well-debated opinion? Why'd he clarify his post later on?
Spare me your "complete lack of decorum" criticisms. Exaggerate much?
You and I are on different sides of the edition-fence but usually we're able to discuss differences of opinion. You've got 4e, I've got Pathfinder - we both win.
But every so often, you get on this "the 3e fans picked on me/us" line of garbage (like you've now done to me in your post). Yet you apparently have no ability to see criticism & attacks coming from your side of the fence. There are trolls, zealots, and (OMG) just regular fans on both sides of the aisle, pal. 4e fans post in Pathfinder forums, Pathfinder fans post in 4e forums. You might as well accept it, it's going to happen. If you're going to try and claim the high ground, at least be honest enough to judge both sides by the same criteria.
As I said above, with Pathfinder 3e fans get a system they can stand alongside and support. 4e fans have 4e. As a result, I've pretty much dropped out of the edition discussions. I chuckled when I saw CourtFool's post. I tried to right a humorous response to it. Apparently, by your view, I failed. Hell, at least CourtFool found it amusing...
I had hoped some level of objectivity would begin to resurface given the choice of Pathfinder or 4e. Sadly, it appears I was wrong.
Apparently you failed your save vs. sarcasm. BPorter was ridiculing CourtJesters reply to question 2 by the OP. Court Jester definitely came off as a Kool-aid drinking zombie in his reply. He added nothing to the discussion except to support the "One edition to rule them all" mantra repeated by some of the more zealous supporters of 4e.No, I get it. Trouble is that BPorter has reacted that way in the past even when a pro 4e post was well reasoned.
Some folks here just can't tolerate any expression of satisfaction with 4e.
Completely false. I react that way to over-the-top "4e is the one true way" or "WotC can do no wrong" posts.
I can tolerate (and even appreciate) people being satisfied with 4e.
I can't tolerate people railing against 3e mudslingers but turning a blind eye to 4e mudslingers.
Which is probably why you feel the way you do. (Psst... you do it constantly.)
Peace out.
Some folks here just can't tolerate any expression of satisfaction with 4e.And some folks here just can't tolerate any expression of dissatisfaction with 4e.
Why must one side be right? It doesn't matter. It's just a game. Some people enjoy it, some people don't. It's not a big deal.
Note: This is not just a reply to you, I'm saying this to both "sides".
In the end, all that matters is what you enjoy.
So it's not just me? Thanks, Nameless.
and some Mongoose's Conan Crush! Root Beer for later.That's funny, I have some cola from Mongoose as well. It's called Flaming Cobra GSL Super Cola. Oh....and I can choose to have some Necro Cream Soda if the mood strikes me. Even better, I can depend on my Goodman Lemon and Lime when I want something basic and deliciously straightforward.
You know what's great? This time around I don't have to worry about a bunch of guys who don't know how to make soda flooding the market with their less than stellar brands. I know I have a quality soda choice right out of the gate, or at least come Oct. 1. ;)
Sure, I am a little bothered I can't get Pazio Cola exactly the way I want it. Fortunately it is easy enough to alter Pazio Cola to my taste. And if push comes to shove I can always partake of Paizo's amazing line of snacks and chips. They taste good with whatever brand drink you choose to partake.
Isn't choice grand?
Yes, it certainly is.
I'm also glad you'll have those choices. I'm just not a big fan of the "kiss the ring of WotC" crowd's sniping.
.......
(Fails Will Save - 3e, so it was more than a coin flip. Sorry, I guess I failed two Will saves...) ;)
Given the constraints of the GSL, however, I hope for 4e 3rd-party supporters' sake it isn't all Diet cola... ['cause that stuff just sucks]
Whatever your poison, here's to good gaming!
|
|
I'm also glad you'll have those choices. I'm just not a big fan of the "kiss the ring of WotC" crowd's sniping.
I agree. Both sides have those that act totally out of line.
I will say people tend to react to strong opposing points of view just as strongly. This sets off a cycle that is self-perpetuating. In a short time normally sane and intelligent people start over-reacting to everything. And this is where we are.
Earlier I posted a rather strong response to Pax's post. Then I thought to myself, how stupid is that. I might think his opinions of the Gygaxian tradition are a bit revisionist but how pathetic is it I felt the need to worked up by that. He has his opinion and I have mine. Do I wish we would all do a better job of being a bit more understanding when we share them? Of course! But I think sharing them is important. Just so long as people understand there might be those that disagree.
Heck, a few lines up I used the term "sides". What sides are there really? The line in the sand is an imaginary one.
Given the constraints of the GSL, however, I hope for 4e 3rd-party supports sake it isn't all Diet cola... ['cause that stuff just sucks]
Oh yes, I share that concern as well. I have faith. If anything, companies choosing not to follow the GSL but still producing 4e material might convice Wizards to loosen up a bit. In the end, I think we will see companies successfully publish within its bounds but a looser license will convince more to make the splash.
Whatever your poison, here's to good gaming!
Here! Here!
Dread,
Completely off topic, but what is the game scene like in the Charlotte area. There is a chance I might be moving around there next year and any info on game stores or groups that might run Pathfinder Society or RPGA stuff would be most beneficial.
Thanks,
Matt
This is not the place for objective assessment, sir.
Obviously, when asked for an objective way to determine what a "flaw" was in a game system, all we hear is, "Well some people change stuff." Not exactly the most "scientific" definition I've seen.
Are you really going to make the argument that his comment was a well-reasoned, well-debated opinion?
When did that become a requirement?! This board would be empty.
|
When did that become a requirement?! This board would be empty.
I'd still be here, but I'd be looking for discworld gurps players :)
It's funny I was actually going to comment on how nothing I've seen of high level play has really been fixed since the biggest problem with high level play is always players (including the DM) and not the system, which no mechanics no matter how wonderful can adress.
Are you really going to make the argument that his comment was a well-reasoned, well-debated opinion?When did that become a requirement?! This board would be empty.
Point, sir. Well played.
|
Wow. I am duly impressed. In my experience, you are an aberration.
Does that qualify as name calling? No hard feelings, crosswiredmind.
I do not consider that name calling at all. I have seen many house rules used in games. Most of the time the tend to come about because of a lack of rules knowledge. The rules actually work but the folks that made the house rule either did not take the time to figure it out or could not figure it out. Some house rules do fill gaps or try and change the style of play. If a game has a gap that needs filling there may be a better set of rules out there. The same goes for style of play.
In general, the times I have encountered a desire to create a house rule were overcome by a careful study of the actual rules.
|
|
When a critical mass of folks come to the conclusion that something is broken, then it is broken.At one time, a critical mass of people believed the world to be flat.
True, but that is objectively verifiable. To say that slow high-level play in 3.5 is broken requires a consensus of subjective opinions. I think we have seen that in recent days.
|
|
I don't see any of the big third party publishers sticking with the "pure" 3.5 OGL.They're not sticking with "pure" 3.5 OGL because now's the time to carve out that market segment for themselves. New 3.5 material is dead, gone, bye-bye. You can't get the manuals from WotC because it would be downright stupid of them to compete with their own product.
On the other hand, 3PPs are willing to continue looking at their OWN game because then the manuals CAN be published, and even though actual 3.5 material from WotC is not available, you won't actually NEED that material to continue playing the game. Thus why Pathfinder is often referred to as 3.75, because it continues the tradition of the 3.5 core mechanics but allows Pathfinder to continue manufacturing NEW product.
This one's not rocket science.
You have completely missed my point. If you re-read the OP then re-read my responses you will see that I am not arguing about what companies can do. I am saying that Ryan Dancey's model will not work due to the very fragmentation you are describing.
|
|
Has anyone here tried high lvl play in 4E with an elite or solo monster? Its just as slow as 3.5 if not slower.
Yep. I ran a lvl 15 experiment. It took about an hour to run the combat and we got through 12 rounds.
Of course the characters were all generated at that level so folks were not so familiar with them and none of us have the level of experience we have with the rules when we had 15th level characters in 3.5.
I have a feeling that combat will pick up speed with rules,character, and party familiarity.
I understand that you do not see the flaws as flaws but many, including the folks that created 3e, have come out and admitted that the flaws exist. Heck - Monte Cook has made a cottage industry out of fixing the game.
Talking about makers of a game system admiting flaws
Mearls actually commented about skill challenges being borked:
Quote:
Hey all,We had a meeting about skill challenges on (cue creepy music) Friday the 13th. We came to a few conclusions on what happened, what our intent is, and what we're going to do about it.
The system went through several permutations as we worked on it, and I think there are some disconnects between the final text, our intentions, and how playtesters and internal designers use skill challenges.
So, we've been listening and reading threads and figuring out some stuff on our end.
Well at least they admit they f!%+ed up and are going to do something about it. I feared they were going to play this the same way that they did the Frenzied Berserker and refuse to acknowledge that they messed up and therefore refused to errata the damn thing. If they fix it and put that in an errata then we will see the Skill Challenges in adventures, which is what I want out of this. I can house rule my own game but, if we want to see this in professionally written adventures then the mechanics must work our the authors will avoid them.
Guys.
Don't get to worked up about CourtFool. He's not on anyone's side. I believe his poison is Hero system. So if you think he's trashing your side in the edition wars you'd probably be right - and it does not matter which side your on.
|
|
Yep. I ran a lvl 15 experiment. It took about an hour to run the combat and we got through 12 rounds.
Well to be fair I would class that as a more mid-lvl than high lvl encounter since the lvl cap for 4e is 30 instead of 20. So a lvl 15 encounter in 4e should be the equivilant of a lvl 10 encounter in 3'5.
[quote=]Questions:
1. Will the product currently sold as "D&D" by WotC be accepted by the fans as "D&D" over the coming two year periods (after the launch-induced excitement dies down)?
Yes, at least as much as 3.x has been accepted by the "fans". Some fans of older additions saw it as deviating too far also. In the end though the large number of "fair-weather" fans will accept it as just another addition. They will buy the core ones and maybe pick another book here or there, but won't really care much about most of them or any thing put out by 3PP.
Well as I was getting at, what is going to matter in the end is name recognition, and that is just something that Paizo/Pathfinder do not have over a large enough part of the gaming public to become the new "D&D". The name Pathfinder is more likely to be related to a bad movie about vikings versus indians than it is to be related to the "inheritor of the true D&D" by the wider public.
Ryan Dancey admited back in the day the reason why D&D was so popular wasn't because it was the best system, but it was the one most people knew. I would suggest that is due to it being one of the first (if not the first) game out of the gate and it built up the name of it. Advertisement for it, whether due to bad press (teen kills himself because of D&D) or good, makes it name brand wider known. When a new gamer wants to buy a learn a game are they going to ask for True20? Conan (ok maybe, due to Conan being wider known)? Iron Kingdoms? Pathfinder? Or D&D? I would wager a new gamer fresh out into the wide world of RPG will know the name of D&D long before they learn of any of those other game systems.
When I see a Pathfinder RPG cartoon show, a movie (not a bad viking vs indians one), and novels. As well as other 3PP trying to be like PRPG, then at that time, Pathfinder may have a chance to be able to take the throne away. But the likelihood of that is extremely small.
P.S. I totally missed the kool-aid comment was suppose to be about being a cultish follower. I thought it was referring to the idea that 4e was shooting for young kids, who often drink ... kool-aid (kool-aid is more of a kids drink than soda is, historicly).
Well as I was getting at, what is going to matter in the end is name recognition, and that is just something that Paizo/Pathfinder do not have over a large enough part of the gaming public to become the new "D&D". The name Pathfinder is more likely to be related to a bad movie about vikings versus indians than it is to be related to the "inheritor of the true D&D" by the wider public.Ryan Dancey admited back in the day the reason why D&D was so popular wasn't because it was the best system, but it was the one most people knew. I would suggest that is due to it being one of the first (if not the first) game out of the gate and it built up the name of it. Advertisement for it, whether due to bad press (teen kills himself because of D&D) or good, makes it name brand wider known. When a new gamer wants to buy a learn a game are they going to ask for True20? Conan (ok maybe, due to Conan being wider known)? Iron Kingdoms? Pathfinder? Or D&D? I would wager a new gamer fresh out into the wide world of RPG will know the name of D&D long before they learn of any of those other game systems.
I agree with you as far as this goes but can think of a couple of points.
D&D does well not just because its the best known but because its historically always been a pretty darn good game. Its managed to at least keep up with the Jones in terms of being a quality RPG. If that was not the case you'd see an exodus of 'real' role players over to another system that was clearly superior hands down. That does not happen - in fact a great many old D&D hands try out a number of other systems only to return to D&D as one of their favourite systems.
The RPG industry is pretty fad driven. The 'goal' of RPGs changes over time. The 'goal' has been making rules for every possible circumstance in the past, at other times its been all about the emo and the story telling, its currently in a 'less is more' phase and it will change again (and this is not even a remotely complete list of all the phases). D&D itself has reflected these changes but its so conservative that it tends to take only a few steps in the direction of whatever the current fad is. I think this is actually part of its appeal. The extremes are not really where most people want their Monday night game to be and yet there is something to these fads. They do reflect what the fan base wants at the time, just not usually to the degree that the games on the 'bleeding edge' are pushing the fad.
D&D is essentially the popular music of RPGs. Hard core fans of every other genre sneer at it but ultimatly it appeals to most of the people most of the time.
**********
I feel Paizo faces a real uphill battle to get the D&D crown. Their quality is phenominal but they are essentially showcasing a well known system. I have a hard time seeing how using a system that has been out for years is going to take the RPG world by storm. What they do with the system seems almost irrelevant to me.
The real test is in how well 4E will be received. If it really does blow chunks and everyone despises it (we are not being entertained at the game table) then Paizo can pick the crown up as it rolls if WotC falls but Paizo can't really do that much to take the crown themselves. Their main goal needs to be staying in the race and becoming the obvious successor should it happen to fall from WotCs grasp.
|
|
Well to be fair I would class that as a more mid-lvl than high lvl encounter since the lvl cap for 4e is 30 instead of 20. So a lvl 15 encounter in 4e should be the equivilant of a lvl 10 encounter in 3'5.
Yep. I ran a lvl 15 experiment. It took about an hour to run the combat and we got through 12 rounds.
Not sure I agree. The whole level 30 thing includes epic play that used to be in a different book.
Well to be fair I would class that as a more mid-lvl than high lvl encounter since the lvl cap for 4e is 30 instead of 20. So a lvl 15 encounter in 4e should be the equivilant of a lvl 10 encounter in 3'5.
Yep. I ran a lvl 15 experiment. It took about an hour to run the combat and we got through 12 rounds.
Your opinion might not be valid.
|
Not sure I agree. The whole level 30 thing includes epic play that used to be in a different book.Well to be fair I would class that as a more mid-lvl than high lvl encounter since the lvl cap for 4e is 30 instead of 20. So a lvl 15 encounter in 4e should be the equivilant of a lvl 10 encounter in 3'5.
Yep. I ran a lvl 15 experiment. It took about an hour to run the combat and we got through 12 rounds.
Not completely true. 4e designers essentially stated that they stretched the 20 level play of 3.x over 30 levels in 4ed. Thus dividing a 4ed level by 1.5 should yield an approximate 3.x level (assuming that the power curves are in fact comparable in that way).
A more plausible objection to calling a level 15 fight "high level" is that you are in the exact middle of the 4ed power curve. By definition, that is a mid level encounter. A true test of high level combat should be conducted in the low to mid 20's.
Hey Court Fool,
I have to say that my initial experience (and for about 5 years after that) with D&D spanning some 1st edition and then 2nd edition was rife with pure Hack N'Slash. At first, that was perfectly fun. Over time I began to want more out of the games I played in and started making characters with history and personality. Once my original DM looked at me like I was crazy when I told him that my did something that was patently stupid. I had a terrible time explaining to him 'thats what the character would do.'
This led, eventually, to a schism in my original gaming group branching into those that wanted character development and those that didn't. While I do miss the old chums from time to time, I don't miss moving on from a simple game to a world where every PC and NPC has their own motivations, ambitions, passions and flaws.
Some of my friends and I would DM you if you actually live somewhere in North Central CA. Speaking of which....whose Court Fool are you? Or is it a Secret?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Not sure I agree. The whole level 30 thing includes epic play that used to be in a different book.
Sort of. It is a rebranded epic - the powers are much more comparable to level 15-20 of 3E than the epic level powers of 3E. 3E-style epic play doesn't really exist in 4E.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Um, we are not going for the "D&D Crown" or anything asinine like that.
In the end, if we can make a fantasy game that appeals to enough people to keep our products in print and make a little profit, we'll be quite happy.
We are not going to unhorse D&D.
One thing that is abundantly clear after talking to hundreds of gamers this week at Origins is that 4e is a very polarizing game system. Tons of people have come up to me on the exhibitor floor and thanked us for sticking with 3.5. Tons.
That combined with the fact that our subscription numbers have gone up every week since the 4e announcement and release and the fact that more than 22,000 people have downloaded the Alpha tells me we are onto something.
But I spent most of the evening hanging out with some RPGA folks, and most of them seem to really like the new D&D edition.
We do not need to get every D&D player to go with the Pathfinder RPG in order for the Pathfinder RPG to be a phenomenal success.
4e is just a _better game_ for some people's play style. 3.5 is just a _better game_ for the play styles of others.
We're focusing on the second group.
4e is just a _better game_ for some people's play style. 3.5 is just a _better game_ for the play styles of others.
I really wish more people could understand this, on both sides of the argument.
<Takes sip from cup.> How's that grape Kool-Aid you got from WotC? Glad you like it. Me, nah, I can't stand the stuff anymore. <Takes another sip>
Why the adhominem attack? Seriously, the accusation that people who choose to play 4e are some kind of brainwashed cultist is getting old, and frankly it shows a complete lack of decorum.
For the record, there was no ad hominem attack here.
You really should look up the phrase. You response is rather ironic.
Don't get to worked up about CourtFool.
Silence, you!
Some of my friends and I would DM you if you actually live somewhere in North Central CA. Speaking of which....whose Court Fool are you? Or is it a Secret?
No one in particular. I like to think of the board as my court, so I am fool to all. I try and often (epic) fail to use wit, sarcasm and shock to get people to think outside of their box. Most of the time I just rub people the wrong way. It is a character flaw.
Thanks for the offer. Alas, I live in Texas.
|
|
<Takes sip from cup.> How's that grape Kool-Aid you got from WotC? Glad you like it. Me, nah, I can't stand the stuff anymore. <Takes another sip>Why the adhominem attack? Seriously, the accusation that people who choose to play 4e are some kind of brainwashed cultist is getting old, and frankly it shows a complete lack of decorum.For the record, there was no ad hominem attack here.
You really should look up the phrase. You response is rather ironic.
Actually it is - the attack is on the person posting and not on the points raised by the post. By insinuating that the poster is a cult like drone BPorter was invalidating the argument by invalidating the poster.
Tons of people have come up to me on the exhibitor floor and thanked us for sticking with 3.5. Tons.
Considering the size of the stereotypical gamer, this might not actually be that many people. ;)
Considering the size of the stereotypical gamer, this might not actually be that many people. ;)
You calling me fat?!
Speaking of which....whose Court Fool are you? Or is it a Secret?
CourtFool probably has a 'real' answer to this but I'll point out part of the services he provides, at least in my opinion (free of charge, mind you - so we are really getting a deal here).
Historically a Court Fool served the King and the Court by making fun of them and in so doing allowing them to reflect on their own conceits. A good Court Fool could make a mockery of a cherished value if that value had been taken to extremes or been subverted beyond its original intent.
I think he provides much the same role on this message board and, reality is, we need such a messenger here. So many of us are so completely caught up in 'D&D' or the 'Edition Wars' that we can no longer see the forest for the trees. We've become pedantic and often arrogant and biased. A little self reflection and some questioning of our biases and stances might just do us all some good.
A little self reflection and some questioning of our biases and stances might just do us all some good.
You bring a tear to my eye. (hugging Jeremy)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Considering the size of the stereotypical gamer, this might not actually be that many people. ;)You calling me fat?!
Hate to be the one to break it to you, but since you asked, the way your groomer trims your fur—especially with the little tail puff thing—well, it kind of makes your hindquarters look a bit big.
Hate to be the one to break it to you, but since you asked, the way your groomer trims your fur—especially with the little tail puff thing—well, it kind of makes your hindquarters look a bit big.
Right! I'll do you for that!
I doubt if this will ever be truly settled. However I think everyone has had some valid points.
Will fans accept 4th as D&D? Thats a loaded question as I see Wizards going for a group of fans that have never existed before. Old hard core D&Ders dislike 4th not so much because of the rules, though I've spoken to many who have issues with the rules, but because of the fluff. They killed FR, lord knows what they'll do to other settings. However the new fans who never knew or disliked 1st, 2nd or 3rd, will follow.
On the other hand I doubt if D&D will remain top dog in the pen and paper RPG industry mainly because it will be dead as such in less then ten years. This isn't that bold a prediction as it might seem, D&D will go online only soon enough. 5th will be a computer game of some type.
As to Pathfinder taking the crown. Depends on what you mean by crown. It is true that if you're telling someone I'm gaming tonight, and they ask what is gaming you can say, playing Rifts and they'll look at you without any idea what your talking about. Then you'll say its like D&D except better, and they understnd. D&D is just that well known, and wizards has the cash to keep it that way. But this isn't unstopable. In the mid 90's I did have one women ask me what Rifts was and didn't know what D&D was then I told her "do you know what Vampire is?" and she said "ohh the role playing thing right?" So it almost happaned once.
On the other hand I don't see crown as being that way. The logic a few months ago was that hey if a publisher whats to make money the D&D name boost sales, so go with 4th, Pezio is making a big mistake. Or if someone comes into a hobby store they'll buy 4th because they never even heard of Pathfinder or any other game system. I don't disagree, but how many non-hard core gamers buy more then one or two game books anyways? If you only know 4th, and by extension Wizards are you really going to buy 3pp works? And if you do how long before you go exploring to other systems?
As to the question of flaws Crosswiredmind is perfectly correct in saying that 3.X has them, as do everysingle other game system ever made since the beginging of time. There is no such thing as the perfect system, if there was then we'd play it without complaint.
On the other hand it is wrong in thinking that a system is played out. 1st ed. D&D is still perfectly good system, its dead not because its not good but because someone stoped publishing it. Look at the old WoD its still works, and I understand PDF sales for old out of print stuff is still decent. Rifts is 20+ years old and still going strong. The people who kill a system are the people who make the system, not so with 3rd however. And BYW none of the so called "Publishing House Ruled" games such as True 20 or Conan prove your point about the flaws to the system, they like Pathfinder simply address things that certain people, in this case the Publisher, don't like about a good system, either because the rules are too complex (not deeply flawed) or because the fluff is wrong for the rules. You can't have Sorceres and Druids running around in Conan, much less in Midnight. So they had to change the rules. This if anything is the strength of 3rd. The SRD rule system can be modified to suit what you need.
I will say however if D&D goes the way I think it will, Paizo will become the "last man standing in the Industry" Sadly WW new world of Darkness just isn't that great (and I mean only in terms of fluff, I think the rules were a step up) and Palladium is have way to many problems right now, though I doubt if they will die, and the other OGL publishers as I see if have not grown as fast as Paizo. As down beat as this might sound, I think overall the industry will become what it was in the 80's a fringe thing. Lets face it our 'Golden Age' was in the 90s.
TTFN Dre
Tons of people have come up to me on the exhibitor floor and thanked us for sticking with 3.5. Tons.Considering the size of the stereotypical gamer, this might not actually be that many people. ;)
Hmm...
Well, if I wasn't the President of the Fat Hasselhoff's I'd argue that point... but as it stands, I resemble that point.Now, anybody want some pudding?
|
|
On the other hand it is wrong in thinking that a system is played out. 1st ed. D&D is still perfectly good system, its dead not because its not good but because someone stoped publishing it.
I agree with most of your post except this bit. The older versions of game do work - that is true. That does not mean that they are worth playing. When a game is actually improved then there is no reason to play the older version. I agree that "improved" is often quite subjective, but in general the market will tell a company when its old game needs to be replaced by a new one. Some people still have fun playing 1e. I would guess that most would not given the success of 2e and the bigger success of 3e. Only time will tell if 4e will be a success.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I really am not interested in following this line of debate as you are framing it in terms of taste rather than objectivity.
This is not the place for objective assessment, sir.Obviously, when asked for an objective way to determine what a "flaw" was in a game system, all we hear is, "Well some people change stuff." Not exactly the most "scientific" definition I've seen.
You cannot objectively determine what is a 'flaw' in a game as their are no objective criteria to which a game must conform. Why suggest otherwise?