I bought the core three 4E books. That's probably all I'll buy from WotC. This isn't unusual. With all the 3E stuff I have, all I have from WotC is are the core books and the Eberron setting. As a rule, I'm not impressed with WotC materials.
I've got a local group here in Stillwater playing Pathfinder. They seem to agree with the whole thread that Pathfinder was the next step instead of 4e.
In our group we are having fun with 4th edition. In contrast when we first heard about Pathfinder we thought it was a joke. Then much to our surprise nope they are trying to fix the 3.5 system. I haven't seen enough to warrant the buying of the Pathfinder RPG.
It's funny, to me, D&D 4th edition is D&D the same way Basic D&D was D&D, and Pathfinder seems to me to be D&D in the same way that Advanced D&D was D&D ...
That's how I see it, too. I was recently able to get my hands on a set of the Original D&D booklets (E-Bay saves the day again!). Reading through them makes it clear that it was only really intended as an detailed expansion of the Chainmail miniatures game, in that it keeps referring back to those rules for ranges and damage rolls. 4E seems to go back to that idea of prop-based gaming, while Pathfinder continues the imagination-based roleplaying that AD&D emphasised when it came into being (the progress from miniatures to imagination being the 'advanced' part, I guess).
Both are equally viable as games: I just prefer AD&D and PRPG's approach. Well, that and my issues with 4E's changes to flavour and mechanics, but that is neither here nor there.
|
I've got a local group here in Stillwater playing Pathfinder. They seem to agree with the whole thread that Pathfinder was the next step instead of 4e.In our group we are having fun with 4th edition. In contrast when we first heard about Pathfinder we thought it was a joke. Then much to our surprise nope they are trying to fix the 3.5 system. I haven't seen enough to warrant the buying of the Pathfinder RPG.
Hey, to each his own. I like what Paizo is putting out and I don't have the time or want to learn a completely new system. I like the fact, I can still use the hundreds of dollars of books on my shelf. I believe the writer's here are better, they are why I back got into playing in the first place.
BTW, I should clarify my original statement by saying... I don't hate 4th, I just don't consider it D&D. I think alot of people get those two mixed up.
I would play 4th the same way I would play Shadowrun...on occasion for a change of pace, but not at my main game. I won't go out and buy all the books because it's not what truthfully interests me. I don't find any reason to hate it though other than it could potentially break up some gaming groups. That's the only thing I find hateful about it. As far as the changes I don't care for them much, but I certainly don't hate it.
Not as long as I have a living alternative in Pathfinder.
|
I do not work for either company so I can say this... Pathfinder, to me, despite the change in name, IS Dungeons & Dragons... 4th edition is, well, just 4th edition. I don't really connect the D&D name with 4e.
I would concur, but I would also add that Pathfinder is your D&D and not WotCs. This 3.5 system belongs to all of us and not any particular company or entity. We are also fortunate to have a company that is willing to help us fix what is wrong with this system as well as print us new copies of our labors (and ship them to us). How cool is that?
Cheers,
Zux
|
This 3.5 system belongs to all of us and not any particular company or entity.
That's the good side of WotC dropping 3.5, really.
I thought some more about Pathfinder as "D&D" for me now. I'd say:
- I want the game that embodies the evolution of the whole D&D tradition and story, walking a little further down the road to the present times and towards the future? I pick Pathfinder.
- I want to get back to my "real" D&D, while not ignoring some of the modifications I've seen as genuine improvements to the game? I run AD&D3 (First Edition with some of the C&C mechanics [always run high on a d20, the d20+mods mechanics to name a few] and houserules, basically).
Here. You got "my" D&D right here.
C&C I don't know too much, but from what I've read, it's more a throwback than an evolution.
Interesting turn of phrase. C&C is more D&D than 3.5e. Yet everyone wants to claim 4e is not D&D as some kind of banner of superiority. You prefer 3.5 over 4e? Fine. We can argue the merits and flaws in another thread. But to claim 4e is not D&D is just hypocrisy.
But to claim 4e is not D&D is just hypocrisy.
4e is not D&D. It seems to be a MMORPG Board game. And, more importantly, they went out of their way to invalidate D&D's previous history. Suddenly, Eladrin are elves. Tieflings have huge horns. Archons are Elemental Creatures. Succubi are Devils. So are cambions. Dryad are weird plant creatures. Gnomes are monsters. Hellhounds are elementals. Lamias are shapechanging swarms. Dragons don't come in metallic any more, apparently. The great wheel isn't any more.
And all that even though there wasn't anything wrong with things as they were.
To claim 4e is not D&D is just the truth.
|
|
But to claim 4e is not D&D is just hypocrisy.4e is not D&D. It seems to be a MMORPG Board game. And, more importantly, they went out of their way to invalidate D&D's previous history. Suddenly, Eladrin are elves. Tieflings have huge horns. Archons are Elemental Creatures. Succubi are Devils. So are cambions. Dryad are weird plant creatures. Gnomes are monsters. Hellhounds are elementals. Lamias are shapechanging swarms. Dragons don't come in metallic any more, apparently. The great wheel isn't any more.
And all that even though there wasn't anything wrong with things as they were.
To claim 4e is not D&D is just the truth.
Hate to say, when you erase your past it does little to keep carrying your own name, unless that is all that was really great about you. Then I suppose you can pretend to be something you aren't.
But I think that is what they call, deceiving.
Apples and Oranges.
D&D now means two different but related things - it is both a brand, and a representation of an entire gaming genre. Like Xerox means 'copy' now, or Kleenex means 'tissue' - the brand name has evolved into representing an entire group of products it is just a part of.
So yeah, D&D is d&d, but so is Pathfinder. I just think Pathfinder concentrates more on character-building (and optimization), whereas D&D focuses on combat and miniatures. Different strokes for different folks, and depending on what you want out of your game, both can be entertaining.
BTW, I should clarify my original statement by saying... I don't hate 4th, I just don't consider it D&D. I think alot of people get those two mixed up.
Precisely.
I have no problem with 4e rules - I think they are great, and I would probably use them in a different sort of game (SciFi or Supers).
I just don't like them for fantasy, because all the flavor appears to be washed out.
C&C is more D&D than 3.5e. Yet everyone wants to claim 4e is not D&D as some kind of banner of superiority. You prefer 3.5 over 4e? Fine. We can argue the merits and flaws in another thread. But to claim 4e is not D&D is just hypocrisy.
I agree.
D&D now means two different but related things - it is both a brand, and a representation of an entire gaming genre.
If that's the case, we're going to play D&D soon, with the Serenety rules in the Serenety 'verse. And I recently played D&D in the World of Darkness with the World of Darkness rules. And a friend even plays D&D online, in the game called WoW. :D
If you count all that, then of course, 4e can rightfully call itself D&D.
|
I want the game that embodies the evolution of the whole D&D tradition and story, walking a little further down the road to the present times and towards the future? I pick Pathfinder.
Excellent choice! To me... and 20 local gamers I know, Pathfinder is d&d.
Sidenote: And... Castles & Crusades does bear a genuine d&d feel as well. I like that it has eliminated thaco and other arbitrary dice subsystems but still retained much of that first edition feel. The seige engine is simplistic, and that's the game's strength - its tag line is '15 minutes to learn the rules, 15 minutes to make your character, and your imagination is the limit. I wholeheartedly endorse the partnership Troll Lord Games had built with Gary Gygax. If anyone is familiar with the look and feel of the materials, they meet many of the nonfunctional requirements of being d&d, albeit 1st edition dnd.
And to the point about 4e NOT being d&d - this so-called edition breaks faith with our community, with the traditions and history of the game. IMHO, it seems they hatched this idea in an ivory tower without stong consideration for the community's needs. 3.5 is STILL a good and sophisticated edition of dnd, and with some tweaks, wotc could have improved its standing with this community. However, now,'Ze game does NOT remain ze same' when you hack up sensibilities and the essence of the mileau! 4e looks like a new game that just happens to be sold under the name dungeons and dragons.
But the essence of dungeons and dragons continues with Pathfinder Role Playing Game (PRPG). PAIZO continues where wotc left off. The legitimate edition (at least the people's fourth edition) is PRPG.
|
But to claim 4e is not D&D is just hypocrisy.4e is not D&D. It seems to be a MMORPG Board game. And, more importantly, they went out of their way to invalidate D&D's previous history. Suddenly, Eladrin are elves. Tieflings have huge horns. Archons are Elemental Creatures. Succubi are Devils. So are cambions. Dryad are weird plant creatures. Gnomes are monsters. Hellhounds are elementals. Lamias are shapechanging swarms. Dragons don't come in metallic any more, apparently. The great wheel isn't any more.
And all that even though there wasn't anything wrong with things as they were.
To claim 4e is not D&D is just the truth.
I'd have to agree wholeheartedly. The change to the game which makes it play much more like an MMO/board game hybrid doesn't illicit the feelings of "playing D&D" that I've had for the last 20+ years. They remind me of when I pull out "The Classic Dungeon" the board game, or when I've played simplified tactical wargames like Memoir '44. I don't like the 4E mechanics, I prefer the 3.x mechanics and even AD&D mechanics; so to that end, 4E is not D&D to me. But, the mechanics themselves are secondary to the much greater reason why 4E is no longer D&D.
KaeYoss has a real point that what made D&D is its history. The changes to the core mechanics mean little when you compare them to the butchering and bastardization of the last 30+ years of D&D tradition didn't need to be changed. Mechanical changes to bring the game in-line with the new target demographic is one thing that I can even understand and forgive, but changes to things like The Great Wheel, gnomes, dragons, tieflings/eladrin/dragonborn, the wholesale destruction of the Forgotten Realms, just to name a few, were not necessary. Why the powers-that-be decided to thumb their nose at years of gaming history (and then have the gall to claim that we're somehow playing an old and tired system through that abysmal marketing job) is what makes 4E not D&D.
From a mechnical perspective, for me Pathfinder takes up the mantle and lets me continue to play a game that feels like D&D. But by the historical definition, Pathfinder can never be D&D, because it is a new world, and a new system with new traditions.
So what I'm trying to say is you're both right. For some reasons, for many of us, Pathfinder is absolutely D&D, because it plays like D&D and lets us bring back the memories we've had of playing D&D for years. For some, 4E lets them play D&D "like they used to" and lets them bring back the memories they've had of playing D&D for years. On the other hand, with the elimination of many of the traditions that made D&D, the argument very legitimately can be made that the D&D tradition died altogether in 4E. It's all a matter of semantics and what angle you're looking at it.
I do not work for either company so I can say this... Pathfinder, to me, despite the change in name, IS Dungeons & Dragons... 4th edition is, well, just 4th edition. I don't really connect the D&D name with 4e.
I'm goin to have to fully agree with you there.
I think Pathfinder is what 4th edition should have been.
I'm goin to have to fully agree with you there.I think Pathfinder is what 4th edition should have been.
I agree with the OP and the above quote. I personally feel that many players want to feel that they have a say in changes to rules for the game they love.
What WotC has done has taken 50% of what SOME players want and 50% of what their marketing/sales departments want and made that a new version of what they call D&D.
I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that 4th Ed will sell more minis and books for WotC while sacrificing some of the fans in the process.
And, more importantly, they went out of their way to invalidate D&D's previous history.
Which of the following is D&D according to you: Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Planescape, Darksun, Spelljammer or Ravenloft?
And, more importantly, they went out of their way to invalidate D&D's previous history.Which of the following is D&D according to you: Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Planescape, Darksun, Spelljammer or Ravenloft?
They all are.
|
And, more importantly, they went out of their way to invalidate D&D's previous history.Which of the following is D&D according to you: Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Planescape, Darksun, Spelljammer or Ravenloft?
Lol They all are...for they are settings that didnt change the feel of the game. You could still play D&D in the setting you wanted.
Heck Eberron had huge changes, but because the core remained the same....noone cared. You can pick and choose settings and play the way you wanted.
The minute though you make the core diferent....Then you're mulitating the sacred cows (I love that term ;) )
Moooooo!
I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that 4th Ed will sell more minis and books for WotC while sacrificing some of the fans in the process.
I have to say that around here, most of the players I know feel that WotC is sacrificed a lot of their fan base.
|
|
The adventure paths seem to be a mix...
The Pathfinder 'world' has been touched on in the 3 most recent adventure paths, but the book will not be released til Aug 13th at Gencon along wth the Beat of the Pathfinder game system...
However, from what Ive seen it will support all levels and styles of play as did the core D&D books
|
|
Yes, they all are... yet, 4E fails to acknowledge Greyhawk (and Blackmoor for that matter) as the original campaign worlds, and instead claim that FR is (hmmmm, funny that, since FR is being "updated" to 4E)
Doesn't the Known World/Mystara predate the publication of the FR Grey Box as well by virtue of being the backdrop of the early classic D&D modules?
Heck Eberron had huge changes, but because the core remained the same....noone cared. You can pick and choose settings and play the way you wanted.
KaeYoss’s anger, at least in the post I was responding to, seemed directed at the fluff changes and not game mechanics changes. As far as I remember, all of the previous settings made fairly significant changes to the fluff as well. A precedent was already set.
Now, if by ‘core’ you mean game mechanics changes, a precedent was set for that is well. Dwarves, Elves and Halflings are not classes?! Feats?! Skills?! What kind of crazy game are you talking about?
3.5 is your kind of D&D? I can accept that. However, 4e has just as much right to the label D&D as 3.5 does.
KaeYoss’s anger, at least in the post I was responding to, seemed directed at the fluff changes and not game mechanics changes. As far as I remember, all of the previous settings made fairly significant changes to the fluff as well. A precedent was already set.
Settings are allowed. But the core game needs to be the core game.
Settings are allowed. But the core game needs to be the core game.
O.k. How do you define 'core'?
Settings are allowed. But the core game needs to be the core game.O.k. How do you define 'core'?
PHB, DMG, MM.
PHB, DMG, MM.Settings are allowed. But the core game needs to be the core game.O.k. How do you define 'core'?
Pathfinder is not the PHB, the DMG nor the MM. 4e has a PHB, a DMG and a MM.
How about True20 or Castles & Crusades?Name two.Disagree. While I like P. better than 4E, there are a half-dozen OGL based d20 systems that have as good a claim to being heir apparent to D&D as P. does.
"Pathfinder" and "Castles & Crusades" enjoy my gaming dollars now! Both are awesome games made by great people.
|
|
[RANT]AAAAARRRRRRGGGHHHHH!!!
Who the Hell cares?? 3.5 is D&D, 4E is D&D, Pathfinder will be D&D, C&C or T&T might be D&D but I haven't looked at them so can't comment. D&D is like pornography: it's impossible to actually define properly and everyone's point of view on where the line is is different (and probably contradictory). Can we please let this nonsense die and get on with gaming (using whichever system)?[/RANT]
Can we please let this nonsense die and get on with gaming (using whichever system)?
Are we going to play D&D?
|
|
D&D is like pornography:....
In that we started off being satisfied by the simple straightforward stuff from an innocent age, with women in chainmail bikinis, and then that no longer satisfies.
So we graduate to more complicated versions, involving Grappling Rules and Use Rope.What was going to be in the proposed 'social combat' rules?
O-o
^^^
People have far too many levels in worttwister here.
I guess I'd like Pathfinder to be Pathfinder. I sympathise with the sentiment of the OP and, as far as sentiment goes, Paizo is also the most comfortable fit for me. I like to think of Pathfinder as the inheritor of the spirit of D&D because over the past 30 years I've grown very attached to the game. Perhaps it was the same for Gary Gygax as well. He seemed to be quite comfortable with all things Paizo prior to his passing.
[Query]Can anyone with better knowledge shed some light on Gygax and Paizo?[/Query]
My main dislike of 4E as a system is that it seems to be a blatant marketing tool. It is the bridge between the pen and paper (literary) 3.0/3.5E imaginative high fantasy and 5E which will be sold at Electronics Boutique. Which is WotC's prerogative. It was just galling to me to realise WotC was really Hasbro and that I was not seen as a gamer anymore but as a mark.
People have far too many levels in worttwister here.
Please define worttwister.
It was just galling to me to realise WotC was really Hasbro and that I was not seen as a gamer anymore but as a mark.
And the Complete Halfling Laundry Mistress splatbook did not give you the same feeling?
Can anyone help me out, here? Does Pathfinder support a variety of play styles, or is it tailored toward the traditional hack-n'-slash variety of gaming?
The Pathfinder RPG is almost exactly the same as 3.5 D&D, so it is tailored toward the same variety of play styles as 3.5 D&D. For what it's worth.
It was just galling to me to realise WotC was really Hasbro and that I was not seen as a gamer anymore but as a mark.And the Complete Halfling Laundry Mistress splatbook did not give you the same feeling?
Good point!
I am in the boat that Pathfinder is the RPG I wish to play in the future. I got into DnD in 1983 and have played it one form or another ever since. But, I have also enjoyed other RPG since, like marvel super hero's, Paranoia, Twighlight 2000, Rifts, Gurps, etc. etc. But I play in 2 diff gaming groups, one that Pathfinder is our future, the other switching to 4th. What I see is that one group is high on role playing, the other on Roll playing. It doesnt make one better than the other, just that ppl are diff. I enjoy PRPG more for my tastes, but I can see teaching a room full of teens 4 ed alot easier. The simple fact is, if you like a rule system that works for you, Its DnD, no matter whats on the cover.