Hi all, eirip here. I have been skimming the boards for awhile but since I am not a very good conversation starter I do not post very often.
Here is what I wanted to talk about. How is 4.0 doing as far as profitability, likability, and bringing in new players?
I myself have bought the phb but I wasn't really prepared for what a difference it was. To me it seems like a decent game but not at all what I grew up playing and currently am playing in 3.5. They have really dummied it down for lack of a better term. I guess that is good for people who are brand new to the game but I found it to be a bit tedious to read, like reading an abc book. Again, I suppose that is good that they explained it down to the nook and cranny for newbies, but for me it just turned me off.
I don't like that they have gotten rid of the spells, or replaced them with powers. I like my wizards to have spell books. I HATE the skill system, as I the majority of the time play skill based pc's. Scrolls, potions, are there any of those???
As far as what paizo is doing with pathfinder I think it is totally awesome. I think it just needed a little tuneup of 3.5 and not a complete rewrite of the rules with them putting a video game on paper, binding it up and calling it a book.
So how are the people on the WOTC message boards liking it?? I used to go on the boards here and there but since I discovered pathfinder and Paizo I spend all my internet time here.
That being said, despite my complaints, I do plan on playing 4.0. I just think it may get a little old after awhile. I am sure I will get bashed for complaining about a game without playing it but those are just my first impressions. Maybe I will change my mind when I do play, who knows, but I do know I am sticking with paizo from here on out.
Hi all, eirip here. I have been skimming the boards for awhile but since I am not a very good conversation starter I do not post very often.
Here is what I wanted to talk about. How is 4.0 doing as far as profitability, likability, and bringing in new players?
According to an interview with the developers very recently at GenCon, amazingly well. The core books are in their third printing, and even H2 (their second published adventure) has gone into a second printing).
I myself have bought the phb but I wasn't really prepared for what a difference it was. To me it seems like a decent game but not at all what I grew up playing and currently am playing in 3.5. They have really dummied it down for lack of a better term. I guess that is good for people who are brand new to the game but I found it to be a bit tedious to read, like reading an abc book. Again, I suppose that is good that they explained it down to the nook and cranny for newbies, but for me it just turned me off.
I don't like that they have gotten rid of the spells, or replaced them with powers. I like my wizards to have spell books.
Wizards in 4th Edition have spellbooks.
I HATE the skill system, as I the majority of the time play skill based pc's.
Why? Skills are even more useful now than they were in 3.5. I find it difficult to believe that you somehow aren't able to have as much fun with your character's skills - and now, of course, your character doesn't have to suffer in other areas just to be good at skills.
Scrolls, potions, are there any of those???
Yes. There are all of those.
As far as what paizo is doing with pathfinder I think it is totally awesome. I think it just needed a little tuneup of 3.5 and not a complete rewrite of the rules with them putting a video game on paper, binding it up and calling it a book.
That's a really, really horrifically inaccurate way of describing 4th Edition, for a variety of reasons. You don't appear to have actually read much of the PHB at all. It actually sounds more like you're puppeting the cries of the anti-4e crowd with things like "4e=video game" and "4e=dummied down".
So how are the people on the WOTC message boards liking it??
Generally? They're loving it. There are a couple really vocal haters, but they're doing little more than trolling and usually refuse to actually discuss what they don't like about it and why.
I used to go on the boards here and there but since I discovered pathfinder and Paizo I spend all my internet time here.
That being said, despite my complaints, I do plan on playing 4.0. I just think it may get a little old after awhile. I am sure I will get bashed for complaining about a game without playing it but those are just my first impressions. Maybe I will change my mind when I do play, who knows, but I do know I am sticking with paizo from here on out.
Please try not to draw conclusions about role-playing games from a cursory glance at the rules, in general. It will lead you to unsupported conclusions like we've seen above. I'm not trying to chide you or anything, it's probably an honest mistake, but there is often a big difference between how something reads and how something plays. Give 4th Edition a try, and see if it isn't very different from how you think D&D should feel.
Hi all, eirip here. I have been skimming the boards for awhile but since I am not a very good conversation starter I do not post very often.
Here is what I wanted to talk about. How is 4.0 doing as far as profitability, likability, and bringing in new players?
I myself have bought the phb but I wasn't really prepared for what a difference it was. To me it seems like a decent game but not at all what I grew up playing and currently am playing in 3.5. They have really dummied it down for lack of a better term. I guess that is good for people who are brand new to the game but I found it to be a bit tedious to read, like reading an abc book. Again, I suppose that is good that they explained it down to the nook and cranny for newbies, but for me it just turned me off.
I don't like that they have gotten rid of the spells, or replaced them with powers. I like my wizards to have spell books. I HATE the skill system, as I the majority of the time play skill based pc's. Scrolls, potions, are there any of those???
As far as what paizo is doing with pathfinder I think it is totally awesome. I think it just needed a little tuneup of 3.5 and not a complete rewrite of the rules with them putting a video game on paper, binding it up and calling it a book.
So how are the people on the WOTC message boards liking it?? I used to go on the boards here and there but since I discovered pathfinder and Paizo I spend all my internet time here.
That being said, despite my complaints, I do plan on playing 4.0. I just think it may get a little old after awhile. I am sure I will get bashed for complaining about a game without playing it but those are just my first impressions. Maybe I will change my mind when I do play, who knows, but I do know I am sticking with paizo from here on out.
I personally have problems with it.
My reaction so far is that they've messed about with too much, in earlier editions I could design an npc no problem, monsters the only problem I had was that they seemed to give them the skills most character classes wish they had (Hide, Move Silently, etc) and put them at levels PCs can't match (for example giants have a +10 spot when they should have no more than say +5 at best).
Now with 4e its supposed to be better however wizards with spellbooks that allow them to change over certain of their abilities each day, fighters are now the only class that can cleave, multiclassing is more pick and choose a specific ability to gain with the option of swapping out other abilities at the cost of a feat.
Healing is supposed to have been changed with clerics and paladins using either one of their own healing surges or allowing other characters to use theirs when they've used up second wind in an encounter (oh and the warlord's inspiring word that allows ectra healing as well as their inspiring presence) still it requires the character to have healing surges left.
Skill Challenges are supposed to make sense not be regimented into a situation because the dm thinks its the only way, that is wrong. What happens when the dm plans a challenge to be based on stealth but the party has no rogue or ranger characters let alone anyone with a good dex or light or no armour.
Yes its supposed to be planned ahead, but so far I'm seriously wondering what is so great about 4e.
I have bought both the phb and keep on the shadowfell, I'm hoping to run it tomorrow and let the players decide what they think about it, I'm going to give it my best shot but its up against decipher's Lord of the Rings so it might not even get played but I am going to give it a try if only hoping I'm wrong about it.
Wish me luck.
PS: I preferred 3.0, Eberron persuaded me to try 3.5 and only time will see if Eberron 4e changes my mind.
Take care and all the best!
Hi all, eirip here. I have been skimming the boards for awhile but since I am not a very good conversation starter I do not post very often.
Here is what I wanted to talk about. How is 4.0 doing as far as profitability, likability, and bringing in new players?
According to an interview with the developers very recently at GenCon, amazingly well. The core books are in their third printing, and even H2 (their second published adventure) has gone into a second printing).
I myself have bought the phb but I wasn't really prepared for what a difference it was. To me it seems like a decent game but not at all what I grew up playing and currently am playing in 3.5. They have really dummied it down for lack of a better term. I guess that is good for people who are brand new to the game but I found it to be a bit tedious to read, like reading an abc book. Again, I suppose that is good that they explained it down to the nook and cranny for newbies, but for me it just turned me off.
I don't like that they have gotten rid of the spells, or replaced them with powers. I like my wizards to have spell books.
Wizards in 4th Edition have spellbooks.
I HATE the skill system, as I the majority of the time play skill based pc's.Why? Skills are even more useful now than they were in 3.5. I find it difficult to believe that you somehow aren't able to have as much fun with your character's skills - and now, of course, your character doesn't have to suffer in other areas just to be good at skills.
Scrolls, potions, are there any of those???Yes. There are all of those.
As far as what paizo is doing with pathfinder I think it is totally awesome. I think it just needed a little tuneup of 3.5 and not a complete rewrite of the rules with them putting a video game on paper, binding it up and calling it a book.That's a really, really horrifically inaccurate way of describing 4th Edition, for a variety of...
Actually Mr. Scott I HAVE read the book up to 202 from page to page. And if you look at my post I said those are my first impressions of the game. Maybe my opinion will change when I play the game, and I do plan on playing. I do realize that the game could play out differently then it reads.
I don't need to puppet the ideals of someone else when I have my own voice.
My reaction to 4.0 and those who say it's doing well is simply to say that, in my OPINION, 4.0 is just a video game on paper, and that, in my OPINION, its apparent success is going to fade by the end of its first year because of that.
Before you go off on "unsupported statements", I have to say that I have played 4.0, I have played games like Diablo and Warcraft, and 4.0 seems, in my OPINION, nothing more than an attempt to make D&D play the same way.
In my OPINION, if you like to play video games with pen & paper, it's fine. I don't think I'm abandoning 3.5 anytime soon, because, in my OPINION, 3.5 is the last version of true D&D that has been put out. In my OPINION, 4.0 is really a different system.
So as to how it's doing, sales might be a good indicator, but the problem with that is that some people will buy a game as a knee-jerk response, just because it's there, billed as the latest version of a thing. What you really need to do to determine how it's doing is to ignore blogs and message boards and look at an objective consumer survey concerning the viability of future sales - exactly the kind of thing a corporate marketing plan relies on.
You want to know how it's doing? Ask Hasbro. They may not know anything about RPGs, but they do know marketing and profits.
Oh, and just one caveat; it is really not fun to have to preface my statements with "in my OPINION" in what is probably a wasted attempt to avoid flaming, simply because I disagree with the people who have positive opinions of 4.0, and I am trying to express my opinions in a civilized manner.
I agree you shouldn't have to preface your statements with " in my opinion". I have always found it funny to see people arguing on these posts. As if there isn't anything better for people to do then have an argument with people over forums. Seems kind of pathetic to me. Probably the number one reason why I haven't posted much.
Eirip I suggest you give the game a chance, most 4E detractors I have met havent even played the game and have just dealt a judgement based on mostly web comments.
If you do play it and decide its not for you, well thats good, there are other stuff you can play. Go 3.5, 3.75.pathfinder,heck even go into any non D&D fantasy rpgs (there are tons and some are awesome).
I agree you shouldn't have to preface your statements with " in my opinion". I have always found it funny to see people arguing on these posts. As if there isn't anything better for people to do then have an argument with people over forums. Seems kind of pathetic to me. Probably the number one reason why I haven't posted much.
Sometimes one person's argument is another person's conversation. I tend to read a thread as a very slow-motion conversation. If I am standing with my friends talking about some random subject and one of them says "I like pudding", I might state "I like ice cream". That is not an argument, it is a conversation. In the same manner, in a thread where someone says "I dislike xyz", someone else might say "I do like xyz". That is not an argument (most of the time), but somehow it gets treated as one by a vocal minority.
So as to how it's doing, sales might be a good indicator, but the problem with that is that some people will buy a game as a knee-jerk response, just because it's there, billed as the latest version of a thing. What you really need to do to determine how it's doing is to ignore blogs and message boards and look at an objective consumer survey concerning the viability of future sales - exactly the kind of thing a corporate marketing plan relies on.
I agree with this. The sales figures for the first and second waves of accessories will be a strong indicator of how the game will be doing in the future. A small dropoff will be a good sign of viability, a large one will not.
|
My younger brother and his group switched to 4E when it came out. they liked the rules, and considered it a well put together game. However, they soon came to think that it was designed more for beginning gamers than veterans. My brother also told me that the number of character options weer, to them, limited.
So, they have decided to shelve 4E for the time being and stick with Pathfinder. He said they have discussed trying 4E again in a year or two, when they have more books out.
Sometimes one person's argument is another person's conversation. I tend to read a thread as a very slow-motion conversation. If I am standing with my friends talking about some random subject and one of them says "I like pudding", I might state "I like ice cream". That is not an argument, it is a conversation. In the same manner, in a thread where someone says "I dislike xyz", someone else might say "I do like xyz". That is not an argument (most of the time), but somehow it gets treated as one by a vocal minority.
Well, FWIW, the argument doesn't start with the "I like/dislike xyz". It tends to start with the retorts of "well, that's because abc, and that's just wrong/stupid/etc". I agree that many statements are just that: statements. But too many people on any side of any issue tend to step into the forums with their board up and their sword readied.
And I agree with you, dop, about watching the numbers for later releases. Everyone needs to stop saying "it's an overwhelming success!" or "it's a horrible failure!" I run games at a college, and the students aren't even back to test this product with their regular groups yet, but somehow we already know it's success level? Come on. We have to wait until the neophile reaction has settled down, then we can tell "how 4e is doing".
|
Just for the record, If you have to use a "in my opinion" in order to prevent flaming , chances are you are flaming anyway. Opinions can and often are wrong.
As for the game itself, I think it delivers. The game is fast, has a unified resolution mechanic that people can remember, offers tactical and strategic play. If your finding 4th to simple to your tastes may i suggest playing the hell out of it, because quite frankly theirs lots and lots and lots of neat interactions to be had their. All i can say is seeing it in action , I don't believe that its the games fault you don't want to play it.
My group and I have switched over and have no desire to go back to 3.x. Have also checked out the pathfinder and wasn't impressed with that, I think they should have called 3.5 point 5, I hope their are some massive changes between the beta and the final product because what can I say, I see a bunch of drivel that doesn't really address a lot of issues, with the system (Multiclassing, the problem with monster hd or rather the absurd ammounts that they require in order to reach their cr in some cases, the skill system or rather the presence of still dead end skills, and the skill sinks, and the idea of prestege skill also seems to add another kick in the balls for the low skill guys, save or die is still in there, as well as the christmas tree effects (which I think the real problem is not the presence of magic items but the accumulation of multible buffs from multible sources and the pretty damn constant recalculation that occurs from not so uncommon effects (antimagic, dispels) )
Furthermore some of their fanservice changes have actually made some things worst (their capstone abilities for being level 20...
Ah, I love the smell of troll in the morning. Proof that your first couple of statements are correct. Congratulations.
Logos Said:
"See its pretty easy to be a negative git here, but for some reason the 4th forum is the place to do this, but oh well, not only is paizo designing its game by a large committee of people with no frickin clue how to design a game, (sorry running and homebrewing does not a designer make )its all being design by a large committee of stogy the way it was yes men."
That was pretty rude don't you think??? And if they had no clue on how to make a game...then why are they doing so well at the ENnies?
Logos Said:
"See its pretty easy to be a negative git here, but for some reason the 4th forum is the place to do this, but oh well, not only is paizo designing its game by a large committee of people with no frickin clue how to design a game, (sorry running and homebrewing does not a designer make )its all being design by a large committee of stogy the way it was yes men."
That was pretty rude don't you think??? And if they had no clue on how to make a game...then why are they doing so well at the ENnies?
Don't feed the troll Genova, it just encourages him. Logos is a pot-stirrer, he'll just come back with more incendiary stuff if you reply. Best to ignore him. As he said in his own post he's not supporting Paizo at all unlike actual 4E fans who can debate subjects (and who can play two games at once) like Crosswiredmind.
Yeah...sorry...
|
|
Just for the record, If you have to use a "in my opinion" in order to prevent flaming , chances are you are flaming anyway. Opinions can and often are wrong.
As for the game itself, I think it delivers. The game is fast, has a unified resolution mechanic that people can remember, offers tactical and strategic play. If your finding 4th to simple to your tastes may i suggest playing the hell out of it, because quite frankly theirs lots and lots and lots of neat interactions to be had their. All i can say is seeing it in action , I don't believe that its the games fault you don't want to play it.
AND
Have also checked out the pathfinder and wasn't impressed with that, I think they should have called 3.5 point 5, I hope their are some massive changes between the beta and the final product because what can I say, I see a bunch of drivel that doesn't really address a lot of issues
This is an example of two wrong opinions. :)
Good job.
While there is some truth to the gripes about inflamatory anti 4e posts in the 4e forum, I have seen more and more posts such as this from 4e supporters. Reread your post, and it should be clear to you that your choice of language in describing Pathfinder, and telling the OP his post was wrong, both qualify as trolling. If you can't follow your own advice when it comes to posting get off your moral high horse. There was nothing of redeeming value in the mass of vitriolic hyperbole you posted above.
|
I don't think I'm abandoning 3.5 anytime soon, because, in my OPINION, 3.5 is the last version of true D&D that has been put out. In my OPINION, 4.0 is really a different system.
Yes, absolutely!
I've got 20 gamers here that fully agree. We're all staying 3.5/Pathfinder. This is where true D&D continues.
|
|
I wonder how many other experienced gamers who purchased 4.0 have had similar regret. Regret can cause a drop in sales. People returning the product out of disappointment can affect profits, but that won't be reflected in the initial sales.
I'm one of those. As a gamer and a person who doesn't like to talk without knowing what he's talking about, I bought all three core books and read them.
I see some merits in 4E's design. It's coherent and well done, objectively speaking. It certainly is not a botch in game design, that's for sure. I would play it if a friend was running it, to be able to play with people I appreciate, not because of the system itself. I can see myself having a good time too, depending on the DM and players involved.
But when I think about what I want from "D&D" and what I enjoy in this game, 4E pales in comparison to 3.X and other editions of the game, each for different reasons. Not that any edition of the game is perfect, far from it, but 4E just isn't D&D to me.
That, and because of a whole bunch of reasons that have nothing to do with 4E's game system, I won't buy any more products from WotC.
We underestimate the fact that many, many people buy the core books to know what's in them. THEN, they make a choice as to whether this becomes their game system of choice or not. How many of us have games on their shelves they've bought and read and then put back on the shelves to not ever run them, really? I bet everyone here.
Add to this that we don't know the extent of 4E's marketing success beyond sporadic, isolated evidence (like Amazon's best seller listings) and the word of WotC (which doesn't get beyond "the 3rd printing" in terms of fact, without knowing how many items are included in a single print run) and the bottom line is... we don't know how 4E's doing right now.
We will know progressively, but right now, we're still in 4E's infancy.
I had a huge post that was ate by my web browser, here we go again.
4e is good. I think it has a more 2e feel then 3/3.5e ever had. I am enjoying it quite a bit and think it has more potential then 3.5e had.
I will continue to support Paizo through their APs because I know I can rip out the story and run it in any system that I want as I had a stint of running Savage Tides in a SCI-FI setting when I quit 3.5e before 4e was even announced.
It is unfortunate for me that I will not be supporting the Pathfinder RPG but since I am supporting Paizo through the APs then I don't feel so bad.
I continue to say To Each Their Own. Don't like 4e? That is what Pathfinder is therefore!
...
We will know progressively, but right now, we're still in 4E's infancy.
And this is truly why all these threads make me smile. Everyone has a prophecy of doom for the other side, based on 3 months of release for 4E and Pathfinder JUST coming out in BETA form! I mean really folks, let's think of some other things we could judge with these criteria:
Mother, pregnant with child and a carrying an infant talking to father:
M: "Well, I think Junior will kick Sprout's butt! He's so much more active!"
F: " Sprout will go to Harvard, and community college will be Junior's fate, he's so stupid."
Two kids playing with puppies:
One: "Rex is so much cooler than your dog Fluffy. He'll win Westminster for Best Dog when he's older."
Two: "Please, compared to Fluffy, Rex is an idiot. Why I wouldn't be surprised if he is stupid enough to chase cars and get hit."
One: "Whatevar! Rex is strong, smart and knows his moves! Your dog Fluffy never learned his tricks right, it takes forever for him to do anything, and he's ugly just like his master!"
The whole point of this long-winded silly post is that NO ONE knows how things will shake out. Saying 4e or Paizo are doomed is plain silly. We should enjoy our gaming choices without attacking each other. Both games have their points, no sense in dissing either, as you are not convincing anyone. All you're doing by flame/troll posting is being a jerk.
|
|
I am of two minds. I play/run both 4e and 3.5.
The initial adventure offerings for 4e seem very combat-orientated, and the skill challenge system, while neat to codify, seems very staid in game play. In fact, players balk at the notion, trying to solve the situation themselves without having to to the 'rules' system' route, at least so far in my experience.
Now, my established group that was formerly 3.5 FR with all the options available wanted to switch to 4.0 mainly, I think, since one player, returning to gaming was far behind the learning curve in 3.5 and here we could start fresh. We converted the PCs there to 10th level, just shy of Paragon. The loss of stat-buffing magic items has been a complaint, as has the lack of any decent replacements for magic, and the 'nerfing' of standard items was a problem, but we worked through it. The true test will come soon when we actually have encounters. I converted a 2e adventure (Steelheart from Dungeon#53) since I wanted to use it in 3.5, and to see what the players will do about facing overwhelming odds. (Some of the encounter levels can start reasonable, but if the players decide to 'zerg' things, the level will ramp up quickly). This is also a test of mid-level play. Hopefully, things will run smoothly.
Another group that I run for, refuses to try the new system. They do not like a primarily martially-focused game, and view 4.0 as that no matter how much I have convinced them otherwise. They seem more investigative, less dungeon-clearing, and much more into the NPC interaction (which is a minority feeling in the other group).
I guess the point is, you have to read your players. Some will want the fast-paced new and shiny system, while others wish to stick to what they know, and have things more grounded, to better interact with the world.
Eirip I suggest you give the game a chance, most 4E detractors I have met havent even played the game and have just dealt a judgement based on mostly web comments.
If you do play it and decide its not for you, well thats good, there are other stuff you can play. Go 3.5, 3.75.pathfinder,heck even go into any non D&D fantasy rpgs (there are tons and some are awesome).
Oh yeah, I do plan on playing. There are actually some stuff in there I thought were pretty cool. Again, I just wasn't prepared for such a drastic change. But remember, I did say what I wrote were my first impressions. I do realize my opinion will probably change after playing.
...
We will know progressively, but right now, we're still in 4E's infancy.
And this is truly why all these threads make me smile. Everyone has a prophecy of doom for the other side, based on 3 months of release for 4E and Pathfinder JUST coming out in BETA form! I mean really folks, let's think of some other things we could judge with these criteria:
Mother, pregnant with child and a carrying an infant talking to father:
M: "Well, I think Junior will kick Sprout's butt! He's so much more active!"
F: " Sprout will go to Harvard, and community college will be Junior's fate, he's so stupid."Two kids playing with puppies:
One: "Rex is so much cooler than your dog Fluffy. He'll win Westminster for Best Dog when he's older."
Two: "Please, compared to Fluffy, Rex is an idiot. Why I wouldn't be surprised if he is stupid enough to chase cars and get hit."
One: "Whatevar! Rex is strong, smart and knows his moves! Your dog Fluffy never learned his tricks right, it takes forever for him to do anything, and he's ugly just like his master!"The whole point of this long-winded silly post is that NO ONE knows how things will shake out. Saying 4e or Paizo are doomed is plain silly. We should enjoy our gaming choices without attacking each other. Both games have their points, no sense in dissing either, as you are not convincing anyone. All you're doing by flame/troll posting is being a jerk.
I agree with you totally Patrick. We should be able to discuss something without all the excess bull**it. And I probably stated a couple things about 4E that I shouldn't have said. I really didn't think that people would take such offense to a comment about a game.
I certainly am not hoping for the failure of 4E. I don't think it would be good for the industry. Personally I would like to get into a 4E game and then I could play both.
|
|
It would be nice if i had the time to sit down and convert adventure after adventure to the new format...but I don't...a young family and long shift hours just preclude it...I have years worth of unrun 3.5 stuff and I intend to use it.
What really put me off was the fact that H1 and H2 are essentially the same adventure for different levels of power.it seems that all the good adventure writers are still doing their stuff for 3.5
It would be nice if i had the time to sit down and convert adventure after adventure to the new format...but I don't...a young family and long shift hours just preclude it...I have years worth of unrun 3.5 stuff and I intend to use it.
What really put me off was the fact that H1 and H2 are essentially the same adventure for different levels of power
That was my main gripe,or should I say reason, about not going to 4E. I just recently got back into gaming in 2005 after 20 years off and I have about 400 dollars in books that I bought that I am not ready to put by the wayside yet.
I agree with you totally Patrick. We should be able to discuss something without all the excess bull**it. And I probably stated a couple things about 4E that I shouldn't have said. I really didn't think that people would take such offense to a comment about a game.
I certainly am not hoping for the failure of 4E. I don't think it would be good for the industry. Personally I would like to get into a 4E game and then I could play both.
The problem is that a lot of people have become emotionally invested in their game of choice. This forum has also become a 'refugee camp' of sorts for posters from other sites who feel marginalized by the focus on 4E. Add in the Internet's magical ability to post anonymously and the fact that posting can be miscontrued very easily due to a lack of voice tone and facial cues that we as humans rely on to adjucate communication and you have a receipe for disaster.
I'm sure you were innocently posting up on your impressions of 4E, and by all rights you should have that freedom. The problem is when you say 'hot button' comments like "paper video game" that brings the 4E Defenders running. After their arrival the trolls start lumbering in. It is very easy for an innocent post to ratchet up into a flame war. It is also very easy to get labeled as a provacateur by the other side for what you thought were innocent comments. If you had posted the exact opposite opinion on the Pathfinder forums the exact same thing would have happened. There is no 'good' side in this particular fight.
I have been on this forum for a year and I must say the atmosphere is much better now than when GenCon '07 unveiled the new 4e. I am personally hoping that since there are now two thriving game systems that all the partisans can go to their respective corners, discuss their respective games, and not worry about what the others are doing.
EDIT:
That was my main gripe,or should I say reason, about not going to 4E. I just recently got back into gaming in 2005 after 20 years off and I have about 400 dollars in books that I bought that I am not ready to put by the wayside yet.
That's my main reason for not switching to 4E as well. I have every 3E book WotC put out, plus a lot of 3PP stuff, and I'm not sure the exact $ worth, but it is easily in the 5K range. I was not ready to stack them in with my 2e/1e stuff just yet. Oh, and the one thing I personally will never forgive WotC for is the killing of the print magazines. That act basically caused me (note: 'me' personally, speaking for no one but moi) to never spend another dime with them. This of course is not meant to say WotC is not within their rights for doing it, or that it didn't make corporate economic sense to them. The cancelling just angered me personally, no matter what their reasoning was.
|
|
I'll admit, I've had no fun with 4th. I have played, though not much. My major gripe about 4e, other then the canning of Dragon, is that it seems to me to lack the variety and freedom of choice that 3.5 had, forcing me into specific "builds" in order to be effective.
Though admittedly, this was further exaggerated by people yelling "ding" when they leveled up, and describing their character as a "prot-specced pally" and describing non-masterwork weapons they found as 'vendor crap'.
I have not rped with this group since, and have gone back to my old 3.5 team.
|
|
Yes it does get annoying when the people you play with who are most enthused about 4E constantly refer to opponents as mobs and ask how much dps they are putting out.Another reason the flavour doesnt appeal to me
and over the years I must have spent close on £40,000 on games stuff(at least £ 2000 in 3.5 including minis)
Yes it does get annoying when the people you play with who are most enthused about 4E constantly refer to opponents as mobs and ask how much dps they are putting out.Another reason the flavour doesnt appeal to me
I imagine that has a lot more to do with the players than the game itself. Half the players in my game are avid WoW players as well, and we don't refer to monsters as "mobs" or whatnot. We've kept track of total damage dealt before, but only jokingly in reference to our recent WoW habits, not our D&D game. We could have just as easily done the same in 3.5.
Hey eirip, welcome to the boards and stuff.
I'd like to open by commenting on something simple. Just because you like 4e does not mean it is without flaws. Because some one else dislikes it, and you do, that does not mean that there opinion is baseless or stupid, it may just be that others have a different taste in gaming.
According to an interview with the developers very recently at GenCon, amazingly well. The core books are in their third printing, and even H2 (their second published adventure) has gone into a second printing).Hi all, eirip here. I have been skimming the boards for awhile but since I am not a very good conversation starter I do not post very often.
Here is what I wanted to talk about. How is 4.0 doing as far as profitability, likability, and bringing in new players?
With regards to how well 4E is doing. Almost certainly, the core release of 4E has been amongst the most successful core releases ever, although, i am unaware of any press releases declaring they have reached 2nd or 3rd print runs(this does not mean they haven't ) reached such milestones, i just don't think they have gone so far as to issue press releases on it.
Wizards in 4th Edition have spellbooks.
I myself have bought the phb but I wasn't really prepared for what a difference it was. To me it seems like a decent game but not at all what I grew up playing and currently am playing in 3.5. They have really dummied it down for lack of a better term. I guess that is good for people who are brand new to the game but I found it to be a bit tedious to read, like reading an abc book. Again, I suppose that is good that they explained it down to the nook and cranny for newbies, but for me it just turned me off.I don't like that they have gotten rid of the spells, or replaced them with powers. I like my wizards to have spell books.
I can see how it would be easy to miss the spell book, it certainly is not what it used to be. While it does still exist, the spell book will be all but empty save for rituals. It is not a spell book as was and maybe people lament that. That said, in general, feel that the simplicity of the book is one of its strengths. I think is it fair to say that it is a far more accessible game and book than 3.5 was.
I HATE the skill system, as I the majority of the time play skill based pc's.Why? Skills are even more useful now than they were in 3.5. I find it difficult to believe that you somehow aren't able to have as much fun with your character's skills - and now, of course, your character doesn't have to suffer in other areas just to be good at skills.
Skills are no more powerful than they ever were in potential; they are just better defined and are more focused to combat applications. I certainly agree that the skill system has lost something(in truth several things).
Firstly the simplified skill set deals poorly with challenges outside of the very basic and those likely to be found in a dungeon. The lose of skills like profession and craft have meant that many players and DMs have had to introduce house rules to covers things from equipment creation to sailing. The simplified skill set also runs into the 'i have athletics so i can scuba dive.' problem. Under the rule set as is, if you have a really high athletic, not only are you a brilliant long distance runner, your also an amazing dancer.(or perhapes that is acrobatics, or diplomacy, we don't know unfortunately, as no guidelines are given) In reality, being good at running does not automaticially mean your great at dancing or vice verser.The removal of ranks means that no longer can one dabble in skills, your either pretty damned good or you crap, there is no in between this combined with the limited number and highly limited choice of skills has meant that choosing skills based on character concept is no longer truly viable. One cannot for instance play a rogue who grew up in the country side and knows about tracking and wilderness survival or more simply, sailed with his father in his youth. At least, not without expenditure of a feat.
Variety and the versatile nature of the skill user have been lost, the skill system is dumbed down and not always sensible or intuitive. There are people who feel that the basic skill system is not an improvement.
That said, the skill challenge system is in my personal opinion a great improvement, with excellent potential.
Scrolls, potions, are there any of those???Yes. There are all of those.
Scrolls are massively changed(though i quiet like there new form) and potions have yet to be released in any great variety, we will see if anything is done with this in time to come.
As far as what paizo is doing with pathfinder I think it is totally awesome. I think it just needed a little tuneup of 3.5 and not a complete rewrite of the rules with them putting a video game on paper, binding it up and calling it a book.That's a really, really horrifically inaccurate way of describing 4th Edition, for a variety of reasons. You don't appear to have actually read much of the PHB at all. It actually sounds more like you're puppeting the cries of the anti-4e crowd with things like "4e=video game" and "4e=dummied down".
It is not inaccurate to say that 4e has elements of online computer games. Form character developement through to powers, there is little which would look out of place on a MMORPG's interface. In fact, it is entirely possible to set up your play surface to look, not dissimilar to a wow interface. People are entitled to there opinions with regards to how they perceive 4e, and those see it being very influenced by and like a computer game are far from a small group. If it is an in accurate statement, you should be able to prove it.
It is also perfectly accurate to describe 4e as dumbed down, as it has been massively simplified and lost some of its more cerebral elements in the process. One need only look at the reduction in complexity of campaign settings for agressive examples of over simplification, for example, the removal of racial and cultural pantheons from the forgotten realms.
Generally? They're loving it. There are a couple really vocal haters, but they're doing little more than trolling and usually refuse to actually discuss what they don't like about it and why.
So how are the people on the WOTC message boards liking it??
Much the same as ever, highly hostile to differing views and styles of play other than kill stuff and take its stuff in a dungeon. Most 'hater' aka those of use who either do not like 4e or do not think that it is perfection incarnate, have left the boards, including some really big names from the past
Please try not to draw conclusions about role-playing games from a cursory glance at the rules, in general. It will lead you to unsupported conclusions like we've seen above. I'm not trying to chide you or anything, it's probably an honest mistake, but there is often a big difference between how something reads and how something plays. Give 4th Edition a try, and see if it isn't very different from how you think D&D should feel.
I used to go on the boards here and there but since I discovered pathfinder and Paizo I spend all my internet time here.
That being said, despite my complaints, I do plan on playing 4.0. I just think it may get a little old after awhile. I am sure I will get bashed for complaining about a game without playing it but those are just my first impressions. Maybe I will change my mind when I do play, who knows, but I do know I am sticking with paizo from here on out.
Many of your conclusions are fairly accurate, however, give it a try as you may find as i did, that it is a surprisingly fun game despite is many flaws. I would say it falls more at the beer and pretzels end of the spectrum. And i doubt anyones going to be writing a 'masks of nyolethtep' or 'the Enemy within' for it, but despite this, it is very fun. It also has some very distinct advantages over 3.5. 4e, reduces the GM's work load massively and makes the construction of interesting combat encounters much easier, high level play certainly seems to be far faster and far easier to handle.
Despite its good points, it does to many of us, feel different and will not replace 3.5 or any other system for that matter, but it is fun and it will find a place in my gaming schedule. I hope it will in yours as well.
Yes it does get annoying when the people you play with who are most enthused about 4E constantly refer to opponents as mobs and ask how much dps they are putting out.Another reason the flavour doesnt appeal to meI imagine that has a lot more to do with the players than the game itself. Half the players in my game are avid WoW players as well, and we don't refer to monsters as "mobs" or whatnot. We've kept track of total damage dealt before, but only jokingly in reference to our recent WoW habits, not our D&D game. We could have just as easily done the same in 3.5.
Funny, in all three groups i play with, when we have played 4e, we have found that the traditional monty python jokes have dried up and been replace by jokes about the price of beer and wow humour. Even some of best players i know, have on occation used terms like tank, agro or pull.
Funny, in all three groups i play with, when we have played 4e, we have found that the traditional monty python jokes have dried up and been replace by jokes about the price of beer and wow humour. Even some of best players i know, have on occation used terms like tank, agro or pull.Yes it does get annoying when the people you play with who are most enthused about 4E constantly refer to opponents as mobs and ask how much dps they are putting out.Another reason the flavour doesnt appeal to meI imagine that has a lot more to do with the players than the game itself. Half the players in my game are avid WoW players as well, and we don't refer to monsters as "mobs" or whatnot. We've kept track of total damage dealt before, but only jokingly in reference to our recent WoW habits, not our D&D game. We could have just as easily done the same in 3.5.
So do we, jokingly. But you're exactly right, and I think it's simply a product of the fact that it's been quite some time since Monty Python, and that geek culture has found a few new fountains of humor to draw from. I was under the impression that Wellard's group was using the terms in lieu of role-playing, which has nothing to do with the game system and everything to do with the players.
I agree you shouldn't have to preface your statements with " in my opinion". I have always found it funny to see people arguing on these posts. As if there isn't anything better for people to do then have an argument with people over forums. Seems kind of pathetic to me. Probably the number one reason why I haven't posted much.My reaction to 4.0 and those who say it's doing well is simply to say that, in my OPINION, 4.0 is just a video game on paper, and that, in my OPINION, its apparent success is going to fade by the end of its first year because of that.
Before you go off on "unsupported statements", I have to say that I have played 4.0, I have played games like Diablo and Warcraft, and 4.0 seems, in my OPINION, nothing more than an attempt to make D&D play the same way.
In my OPINION, if you like to play video games with pen & paper, it's fine. I don't think I'm abandoning 3.5 anytime soon, because, in my OPINION, 3.5 is the last version of true D&D that has been put out. In my OPINION, 4.0 is really a different system.
So as to how it's doing, sales might be a good indicator, but the problem with that is that some people will buy a game as a knee-jerk response, just because it's there, billed as the latest version of a thing. What you really need to do to determine how it's doing is to ignore blogs and message boards and look at an objective consumer survey concerning the viability of future sales - exactly the kind of thing a corporate marketing plan relies on.
You want to know how it's doing? Ask Hasbro. They may not know anything about RPGs, but they do know marketing and profits.
Oh, and just one caveat; it is really not fun to have to preface my statements with "in my OPINION" in what is probably a wasted attempt to avoid flaming, simply because I disagree with the people who have positive opinions of 4.0, and I am trying to express my opinions in a civilized manner.
Hey, nothing wrong with enjoying a good arguement ;)
So do we, jokingly. But you're exactly right, and I think it's simply a product of the fact that it's been quite some time since Monty Python, and that geek culture has found a few new fountains of humor to draw from. I was under the impression that Wellard's group was using the terms in lieu of role-playing, which has nothing to do with the game system and everything to do with the players.Funny, in all three groups i play with, when we have played 4e, we have found that the traditional monty python jokes have dried up and been replace by jokes about the price of beer and wow humour. Even some of best players i know, have on occation used terms like tank, agro or pull.Yes it does get annoying when the people you play with who are most enthused about 4E constantly refer to opponents as mobs and ask how much dps they are putting out.Another reason the flavour doesnt appeal to meI imagine that has a lot more to do with the players than the game itself. Half the players in my game are avid WoW players as well, and we don't refer to monsters as "mobs" or whatnot. We've kept track of total damage dealt before, but only jokingly in reference to our recent WoW habits, not our D&D game. We could have just as easily done the same in 3.5.
Not really, almost any fantasy game we play, the old classics come back out. The jokes have changed, because we find the elements we are joking about intrusive. Encounter powers have 'cool downs', strikers are DPS, guardians are tanks and when we are busy smirking over these elements which intrude forcefully into our conciousness, regardless of our wants, it takes up the space that 'kanigits' would normally fill.
Hey, nothing wrong with enjoying a good arguement ;)
I DO enjoy a good argument. I just don't like my statements being called "unsupported" or "ill-informed" if all I did was express an opinion.
There are those who try to engage in debate tactics to win arguments without considering that it isn't the form of the argument that's important, but the content. We're talking about likes and dislikes here.
Don't take it so hard Jerry, most people on these boards are well-spoken well-meaning folks. There are a few on either side of the debate who are ruthless trolling partisans, you have to just disregard their statements and move on. A lot of these folks get their jollies riling you up, I've had it happen, it's not fun. Try to keep it in perspective, these folks win when you react to their bile, and lose if you can ignore their posts.
Perhaps not ignore, maybe just not respond to them ;)
Oh, come on! Haven't you ever poked a sleeping bear with a stick? (Better have your running shoes on!)
Well I try to adjucate my responses on this forum by a paraphrased Murphy's Law:
Never argue with a troll, people might not know the difference.
Poking people with jabs at their beliefs will only earn you a 'troll' moniker. Look at the one you attracted upthread, despite prefacing your post with 'opinion'. His main focus was to insult you because you had stated something he disliked. In effect, he was 'poking' you to get a response. He then broadened his post to insult Pathfinder, the playtesting forums, and Paizo just to make sure someone would respond to his bile.
Trolls, as my definition of the moniker goes, are people who enjoy argument for the sake of argument, who do not care how their posts are perceived, and get the most fun when they goad someone into descending to their level. They care not how they insult people, because those people will never meet them face to face. To them the best day is one where they have cheapened the level of discourse and caused chaos among the two sides of a debate. They'll throw in ad hominem attacks because it's effective and there is no personal danger to them. There's no accountability on the Internet.
Another thing is you will never win an argument with a troll. Your negative responses only serve to validate the troll's sense of self-worth, and encourages the troll to continue posting bile. Trolls don't care about you, the argument or any reasoned debate, they only care about getting a rise out of someone.
There is only one way to defeat a troll: Don't respond to their posts. To quote the comupter from Wargames:
The only way to win is not to play.
I think my joke has taken us a little of topic. Perhapes we should return to discussing 4e and its progress through the gaming industry.
Jerry Wright, i completely sympathise with your desire not to have your posts about your opinion called ill informed, especially without evidence.
|
|
So do we, jokingly. But you're exactly right, and I think it's simply a product of the fact that it's been quite some time since Monty Python, and that geek culture has found a few new fountains of humor to draw from. I was under the impression that Wellard's group was using the terms in lieu of role-playing, which has nothing to do with the game system and everything to do with the players.
I never said they were using the terms in lieu of Roleplaying..I merely meant that the players have noticed a distinct similarity with WoW(which I don't play btw.) and when planning their next moves OOC tend to use MMOspeak as shorthand. It just gets on my nerves
... Perhaps we should return to discussing 4e and its progress through the gaming industry...
4E's progress: Some folks love it, others ... not so much. Development of its online features are off to a rocky start. Too early to tell what its eventual success will be. So far it is a commercial success. The attached GSL is being revised due to unexpected resistance to its original form. No matter its eventual success, WotC and by extension Hasbro will keep on trucking, mostly since D&D isn't that big of a money maker in Hasbro's larger scope of economics. It's not even the largest slice of WotC's pie.
Did I miss anything?
... Perhaps we should return to discussing 4e and its progress through the gaming industry...4E's progress: Some folks love it, others ... not so much. Development of its online features are off to a rocky start. Too early to tell what its eventual success will be. So far it is a commercial success. The attached GSL is being revised due to unexpected resistance to its original form. No matter its eventual success, WotC and by extension Hasbro will keep on trucking, mostly since D&D isn't that big of a money maker in Hasbro's larger scope of economics. It's not even the largest slice of WotC's pie.
Did I miss anything?
That just about sums it up ;)