To those playing the "4E ignores it's roots" card, I'm glad that WotC, when they decided to develop a new edition, really made it a new edition. The success of that endeavour aside, I really didn't want to see WotC produce D&D 3.5.2 or whatever, which is what Pathfinder is in the end. That's the irony: just about everyone here thinks what Paizo is doing is great and that Pathfinder is the greatest thing since sliced bread (only a slight hyperbole), yet had WotC done the exact same thing I can't even begin to imagine the hate and loathing that would have been sent their way by the gaming populace. Paizo's and Pathfinder's popularity are owed as much to WotC's releasing 4E as to the efforts of the Paizo staff and the quality of their product (which are both excellent, btw).
|
To those playing the "4E ignores it's roots" card, I'm glad that WotC, when they decided to develop a new edition, really made it a new edition. The success of that endeavour aside, I really didn't want to see WotC produce D&D 3.5.2 or whatever, which is what Pathfinder is in the end. That's the irony: just about everyone here thinks what Paizo is doing is great and that Pathfinder is the greatest thing since sliced bread (only a slight hyperbole), yet had WotC done the exact same thing I can't even begin to imagine the hate and loathing that would have been sent their way by the gaming populace. Paizo's and Pathfinder's popularity are owed as much to WotC's releasing 4E as to the efforts of the Paizo staff and the quality of their product (which are both excellent, btw).
I think the popularity of PRPG is more derived from the realization that the people here wanted to keep getting new material for 3.5 gaming, and PRPG offers that. There is enough changes that people like that will motivate the purchase of a new core book, but I think system support is the motivating factor.
If WotC hadn't released 3.5, they could have done anything they wanted, so some of the "too early for 4th Edition" has nothing to do with a new edition, but the fact it is ANOTHER edition from the SAME company. So yes, if PRPG was from WotC, there would be backlash. But they wouldn't have to call PRPG a new edition, they could just call it something like the old "Player's Option" books.
Also, how come every time I look at this thread title I think I see
To me...and Several Local Gamers, Pathfinder is DEAD
Blah blah my game syste is D&D blah blah my opinion is truth blah blah blah blah frikin blah.
Can these stupid threads just die?
If WotC hadn't released 3.5, they could have done anything they wanted, so some of the "too early for 4th Edition" has nothing to do with a new edition, but the fact it is ANOTHER edition from the SAME company. So yes, if PRPG was from WotC, there would be backlash. But they wouldn't have to call PRPG a new edition, they could just call it something like the old "Player's Option" books.
Paizo isn't calling it a new edition either, and rightly so: the purpose is not to be a new edition, but to be the old one.
As for ifs and buts, that's water under the bridge. WotC did release 3.5 and WotC did release 4E. To me, speculating what might have been is irrelevant.
Can these stupid threads just die?
Not if you don't stop posting on them. ;-)
To those playing the "4E ignores it's roots" card, I'm glad that WotC, when they decided to develop a new edition, really made it a new edition.
Except that they didn't. They developed a new game.
Blah blah my game syste is D&D blah blah my opinion is truth blah blah blah blah frikin blah.
Can these stupid threads just die?
Can't you just go away and post somewhere else? We all know you're 4e's biggest fan, we don't need to be reminded every day.
You guys keep complaining that the D&D fans don't leave the 4e posts alone, but then you come and pollute the Pathfinder RPG boards with your pro 4e talk and hurt feelings when someone doesn't agree with your opinion that 4e is the best thing since sliced bread.
Do yourself, and all of us, a favour and stick to the 4e boards. Or, if you want to post here, don't act surprised when people like Pathfinder a lot more than 4e, and don't keep mentioning how great you think the 4e changes are.
Except that they didn't. They developed a new game.
They did just that when developing 3E too, IMO. I know your mileage differs on this point, but I do want to point out that 3E got a lot of hate and grognard disdain at its inception as well. In fact, those that claim that 4E is closer to 2E than 3E are, IMHO, correct, slaughtered sacred cows notwithstanding.
Even still I can't get away from the 4e fanbois...
Considering the reason I - not at all a 4E fanboy (learn to spell already) - am staying away from the WotC forums precisely because of posters like you: meet mr. Kettle.
|
To those playing the "4E ignores it's roots" card, I'm glad that WotC, when they decided to develop a new edition, really made it a new edition. The success of that endeavour aside, I really didn't want to see WotC produce D&D 3.5.2 or whatever, which is what Pathfinder is in the end. That's the irony: just about everyone here thinks what Paizo is doing is great and that Pathfinder is the greatest thing since sliced bread (only a slight hyperbole), yet had WotC done the exact same thing I can't even begin to imagine the hate and loathing that would have been sent their way by the gaming populace. Paizo's and Pathfinder's popularity are owed as much to WotC's releasing 4E as to the efforts of the Paizo staff and the quality of their product (which are both excellent, btw).
I dont agree that if WotC had produced a 4.0 or a 3.75 and kept true to the game's past history that I would have complained one bit. When they went to 3.0 I endorsed them and talked it up with my circle of influence...when they went to 3.5 and all my buddies and family said 'wtf'...I kept at it to include convincing all my fellow gamers to stay with it...a company has a right to create a new product, thats how they stay in budiness, by folks buying their product...
The biggest issues with WotC creating a fourth edition and driving me away fell into the issue: "It doesnt feel like D&D to me". 90% of the game changed so much that it invalidates all of my home campaign material.
They could have created this system and called it anything but Dungeons and Dragons, and I would have likely bought to and played it occasionally. By calling it D&D you're 'using the heritage of the name', yet they spurned the heritage in the very same breath by dumping so many of the monsters (Storm Giants), or altering them beyond (Lamias and Unicorns) recognition. I could go on and on about the changes that made me say "why did they do that?"...for no reason that I can think of. They could have left all that the same and created the game mechanics they have...and kept me on board. They didnt. and they lied about it....insulted the gamers that pay their salaries (re-watch those videos they put out and tell me you dont go 'Just what are they saying?')
my 2 cents.
Consider this, I spell fanboi this way for a reason...
Whatever reason it is - and I can think of a few choice ones - it's not good enough. Avril Lavigne has a lot to answer for.
90% of the game changed so much that it invalidates all of my home campaign material.
I heard the exact same thing when 3E came out.
|
I haven't tried 4e yet, but my sister has. She plays in a 4e campaign with her friends and a 3.75 campaign with me. She tells me that 4e is alot "simpler" to learn and use(sort of a "pick up and play"), but 3.x has a lot more character definition. Personally, I am not getting the 4e books not out of any hatred, but because I can't afford them (yet). Because of that reason alone, I'm gonna stick with 3.x and Pathfinder for the time being.
|
|
I think of the whole edition wars like this:
Kid 1: I want a cat!
Kid 2: Me too!
Pet Shop: Okay, but only something that doesn't shed and is easy to care for, because you are young. And something that eats a lot.
Kid 1: Okay.
Kid 2: But I like petting cats, and I don't have much money.
Pet Shop: Now, what do you in a cat?
Kid 1: One without a long tail.
Kid 2: I guess...
Pet Shop: Done.
Kid 1: And with a beak.
Kid 2: Cats don't have beaks.
Kid 1: Shut up, this one does!
Pet Shop: I can do that. Anything else?
Kid 1: Yeah, I don't like cats going "purr", I want a quiet cat.
Kid 2: Purring makes me happy.
Kid 1: And not purring makes me happy!
Pet Shop: Quiet cat, got it. I want you to buy from me, so anything else?
Kid 1: I want the cat to do whatever I say.
Kid 2: I like cats because they are independent.
Pet Shop: Submissive personality. Check. And?
Kid 1: I trip on things, I want my cat to be unbreakable.
Kid 2: I don't fall on cats. I want my cat to be agile and cat-like.
Pet Shop: Okay, I think I know what you need. Give me a week.
[A week later the kids come back, and the pet shop owner brings out two turtles and hands one to each kid]
Pet Shop: Here are your cats.
Kid 1: Yay! It's exactly what I wanted in a cat!
Kid 2: But this is a turtle!
Pet Shop: It's cat now!
Kid 2: Can I get a real cat?
Pet Shop: That is a cat, the other kid is happy with his cat. From now on, this is the only cat I will sell. New cat is better.
Kid 2: I'm going to another pet shop.
Pet Shop: Good luck finding one.
Kid 1: Pet Shop says my cat is better.
Kid 2: It's not a cat! Your cat sucks!
Kid 1: Yes it is a cat, you just say that because you are mad. Stop being angry and just live with it.
Kid 2: No, I say that because it isn't a cat. And it sucks.
Kid 1: Yes it is! Why do you always make fun of my cat, it hurts my feelings.
Kid 2: I hate you.
Kid 1: I hate you too.
Pet Shop: I love selling turtles!
The moral is that buying a pet is fine if it makes you happy, but it just confuses and angers people when you call something different by the same name. Kid 1 has a perfectly good turtle, but calls it a cat. Kid 2 hates the turtle for pretending its a cat, which makes him hate Kid 1 even though Kid 1 did nothing wrong.
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.
I agree. And I don't buy a change in flavor makes something not D&D. Otherwise, I have never once ever played D&D since in any game I have played in there as been some change to the flavor to fit better with what we wanted to do.
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.
Except there are two problems with your statements here, the first is that it should be d&d, not D&D (the capital letters indicate the product name and the lower indicate the gaming genre) and second some of those don't match with the gaming genre described by d&d. Take the movies Serenity and Conan the Destroyer, I don't think most people would agree that Serenity could be considered a "d&d movie" but Conan the Destroyer might be. While exact flavor might not be a big issue, genre is still important.
[Query]Can anyone with better knowledge shed some light on Gygax and Paizo?[/Query]
I thought I heard somewhere that Gygax thought 3.x was lame, but I don't have any evidence to give you. And since Pathfinder is basicly 3.5plus, well ...
Though Paizo does sell several of Gygax's books, so I image they would have had a good relationship.
[query]How does Basic Fantasy RPG fit into the whole D&D or d&d or not?[/query]
To those playing the "4E ignores it's roots" card, I'm glad that WotC, when they decided to develop a new edition, really made it a new edition.Except that they didn't. They developed a new game.
Blah blah my game syste is D&D blah blah my opinion is truth blah blah blah blah frikin blah.
Can these stupid threads just die?
Can't you just go away and post somewhere else? We all know you're 4e's biggest fan, we don't need to be reminded every day.
You guys keep complaining that the D&D fans don't leave the 4e posts alone, but then you come and pollute the Pathfinder RPG boards with your pro 4e talk and hurt feelings when someone doesn't agree with your opinion that 4e is the best thing since sliced bread.
Do yourself, and all of us, a favour and stick to the 4e boards. Or, if you want to post here, don't act surprised when people like Pathfinder a lot more than 4e, and don't keep mentioning how great you think the 4e changes are.
DId I ever once mention how great I thought 4E was in that post? Did I even mention 4E in there? The answer is no. I haven't brought up 4E in awhile on here (Mainly due to just lurking but anyway). I am a bigger fan 4E but I do still like PRPG so I'll be sticking around very much so nyah.
|
|
Consider this, I spell fanboi this way for a reason...Whatever reason it is - and I can think of a few choice ones - it's not good enough. Avril Lavigne has a lot to answer for.
90% of the game changed so much that it invalidates all of my home campaign material.I heard the exact same thing when 3E came out.
How so? when pretty much all the fluff was the same...all that changed was crunch....Its the fluff changes that have most of irked at WotC...that and the idealogical changes.
How so? when pretty much all the fluff was the same...all that changed was crunch....Its the fluff changes that have most of irked at WotC...that and the idealogical changes.90% of the game changed so much that it invalidates all of my home campaign material.I heard the exact same thing when 3E came out.
To give what was arguably the most obvious example: magical items. In 2E, they are rare. In 3E, they are not just ubiquitous, they're mandatory. That's a huge change in crunch, in fluff and in ideology.
|
To give what was arguably the most obvious example: magical items. In 2E, they are rare. In 3E, they are not just ubiquitous, they're mandatory. That's a huge change in crunch, in fluff and in ideology.
I'd argue with that...
That is not where I went with the OP post...
Its the fluff changes that have most of irked at WotC...that and the idealogical changes...
I thought of the changes in the classes, and all those “kewl powrz” they all get, the loss of a magic system we love to hate, etc, etc, etc...
And don't even get me started on healing surges and pep-talking warlords...
-That One Digitalef Fellow-
That is not where I went with the OP post...
Its the fluff changes that have most of irked at WotC...that and the idealogical changes...I thought of the changes in the classes, and all those “kewl powrz” they all get, the loss of a magic system we love to hate, etc, etc, etc...
Those are what I would label mechanical changes first, and fluff or ideology a distant second. So I'm kind of at a loss where you're going now (presuming you're dread, which is what you're implying).
The ideology of 4E is, compared to those of 3E and 2E, for a great part a return to the latter. Classes have very specific abilities others don't, which pushes them in a specific corresponding role in the party, and core mechanics focus almost exclusively on combat and conflict - that applies to 4E and 2E both.
|
|
Those are what I would label mechanical changes first, and fluff or ideology a distant second.
While I can certainly see where you are coming from, I however see them as ideological first because from a personal perspective, I have run a very successful solo campaign for many, many years. And 4e shunts classes into specific roles. Any roleplayer worth their salt has no need for the rules (or any fluff for that matter) to tell them how to play their character (i.e. leader, defender, etc.)...
And since 4e seems to be written for the newbie gamer, to quote "Tome of Battle" (which has a lot in common with 4e), "this isn't your parent's D&D", that's fine, because this old dog, just does not like what 4e has to offer...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I haven't tried 4e yet, but my sister has. She plays in a 4e campaign with her friends and a 3.75 campaign with me. She tells me that 4e is alot "simpler" to learn and use(sort of a "pick up and play"), but 3.x has a lot more character definition.
I think your sister is right on the money here. In any game system, to make something simpler, it requires the reduction of player options. To most people who have played D&D up unto this point, it's the complexity and investment in learning the system that is part of the enjoyment of the game. Once you make that investment, the game continues to open up for you in multiple ways.
4th Edition is not D&D because I am not in it.
|
|
To give what was arguably the most obvious example: magical items. In 2E, they are rare. In 3E, they are not just ubiquitous, they're mandatory. That's a huge change in crunch, in fluff and in ideology.How so? when pretty much all the fluff was the same...all that changed was crunch....Its the fluff changes that have most of irked at WotC...that and the idealogical changes.90% of the game changed so much that it invalidates all of my home campaign material.I heard the exact same thing when 3E came out.
I say thee nay...I give out the same # of magic items now as I did then...Magic Items have long been something players sought out and wanted. DMs can control this 100% If you dont want the player to have it...they dont have it.
So to me that item doesnt hold water.
|
|
That is not where I went with the OP post...
Its the fluff changes that have most of irked at WotC...that and the idealogical changes...I thought of the changes in the classes, and all those “kewl powrz” they all get, the loss of a magic system we love to hate, etc, etc, etc...
Those are what I would label mechanical changes first, and fluff or ideology a distant second. So I'm kind of at a loss where you're going now (presuming you're dread, which is what you're implying).
The ideology of 4E is, compared to those of 3E and 2E, for a great part a return to the latter. Classes have very specific abilities others don't, which pushes them in a specific corresponding role in the party, and core mechanics focus almost exclusively on combat and conflict - that applies to 4E and 2E both.
Hes not me...lol or rather I am not him.
4th Edition is not D&D because I am not in it.
But...but...m'lord Tharizdun, I must point out that you are found in the 4e Dungeon Master's Guide, detailed with the other evil gods, it even displays your glorious holy symbol!
(And, by this logic, 3.5 is not D&D since Tharizdun/The Eye is mentioned at no time in the core rules)
"It doesn't feel like D&D."
This was the exact same quote I heard from a fellow gamer at the local gaming store. It was prefaced by expressing positives about the system, but that was the final verdict. For me, it hit on a note that I'd been feeling, but hadn't quite put into words.
I tried the system, and I liked it - but on a number of levels, it just failed to grab my interest. The game flowed well enough in combat, and didn't seem difficult to pick up (at least for experienced gamers).
However, what grabs my attention about a system tends to be as much 'fluff' as it is how good the rules are. Let's face it, D&D in any edition has never been a 'perfect system'. I've certainly played other RPGs that improved on it in many ways. However, those games never pulled me away from D&D for long. Likewise, I never really had as much interest in playing other 'games' with the D&D rules. I bought the Call of Cthulhu d20 sourcebook, but I did so mainly to use in my D&D games, for example. Would I have played it standalone? Absolutely. Would I have gone back to D&D afterwards? Again, yes.
When changing to 2nd Edition, and then later to 3.0/3.5, I still had those familiar backdrops. The campaign settings were still there, by and large, in recognizeable form, and the monsters, planes, etc, all were still sort of there. Sure, we griped about the removal of Demons and Devils in 2nd Edition, but they were later put back in, and in the meantime we just continued using the 1st Ed books when necessary for those.
I could live with most of the rules changes. Couple that with an elimination or radical rearranging of all of the traditions that the game carries with it, and I no longer recognize it anymore.
WoTC likely believes that this is a necessary thing for their continued business model. They're certainly entitled to make that judgment - many companies do, deciding that they need to cater to certain customers, and not to others. I feel (for a variety of reasons) that I have been subtly told 'this product is not meant for you'.
While I can certainly see where you are coming from, I however see them as ideological first because from a personal perspective, I have run a very successful solo campaign for many, many years. And 4e shunts classes into specific roles. Any roleplayer worth their salt has no need for the rules (or any fluff for that matter) to tell them how to play their character (i.e. leader, defender, etc.)...
The 4E roles don't tell you how to play your character. They tell you the principal part such a character typically (though not necessarily) has in combat. And again, 2E was the same - it just wasn't so explicit about it. Thieves and Rangers were the only ones with sneak abilities. Clerics had the healing monopoly. Fighters (and Paladins) had their followers, turning them into de facto leaders. And so on.
3E was different in many ways from every other edition, not just from 4E.
Blah blah my game syste is D&D blah blah my opinion is truth blah blah blah blah frikin blah.
Can these stupid threads just die?
Yes... They die rather quickly on WOTC's boards and Enworld's boards... which you would do best on if this is not your sort of thing.
On that note, I do not recommend Amazon... cause all of us "haters" (aka the people that actually shell out money for rpg hobby gaming in masses) are allowed to voice our true opinion of the 4th edition miniatures based game there.
4th Edition is not D&D because I am not in it.
Good enough point!
Elder Ele... is not in it, good enough reason not to buy it!
But...but...m'lord Tharizdun, I must point out that you are found in the 4e Dungeon Master's Guide, detailed with the other evil gods...
LOGIC! YOU DARE REQUIRE OF ME LOGIC!
...it even displays your glorious holy symbol!
WHAT!? NO! Blasphemy! No-one must know what an obex looks like!
...but that is fine, since my holy symbol is an inverted black triangle with an inverted yellow Y in the center.I am pleased to be converting your Dungeon Masters to the way once again.
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.
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)
|
|
*gets on his soapbox*
The biggest thing my sister felt was once the PC's got to level 6-7-8 was that even though one is a wizard, one is a fighter...they felt like they were doing the same thing. Now like I said, I haven't tried 4e, so I have no opinion yet. But this is what I have been hearing from many of my gamer friends.
And as for the Amazon boards...
I saw somewhere else on the Paizo boards about that, so I went and checked it out...I have to say, I think that there were more "personal attacks" (stuff about your family, sexual orientation, etc.) there than anywhere. Kinda sad when you realize that your talking about a game that requires, even on the basic level, cooperation.
*gets off his soapbox*
Someone did bring this up earlier in a roundabout way, but the new edition change feels like we've now got two versions of the D&D game.
Pathfinder is closer to AD&D in complexity, if not style.
4E is closer to Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal D&D in complexity, if not style. If you can imagine role being like the old Elf being your class sort of thing.
Both had their fans and own play styles. I'm leaning towards Pathfinder myself, instead of 4E.
To me, 4th edition is more of a miniatures/skirmish game than an RPG. I really don't see the parallel between it and any previous versions.
I guess a late response is better than never, but I agree that pathfinder IS DnD. The only game in town left.