|
What are your specific issues? If you post them i'll try and answer them as well as I can. I've been playing 4e since it was released (as DM and player) as our weekly Ptolus campiagn ended a few weeks after 4e release.
I'm no edition soldier so i'll try and keep any of that out of it, but I really Am having a good time with 4e at the moment. I also had a really good time playing 2e, 3.5, vampire and while ive not played it yet i'll think have a really good time playing Pathfinder (if I ever get the chance, and I hope i do). I've always found its the story you tell, not the rules you use that make a great RPG,. It just so happens that the rules we are using at the moment are 4e.
You are a gentleman and scholar sir.
What I would like is perhaps a new topic, perhaps called "Idiots guide to 4E". What I want to be able to ask is about how things in 4E work to produce an entertaining evening for you and your friends. After intelligent discussion NOT debate OR conversion - just understanding. I fully expect that some comment/observations may come across as negative. Seriously if they didn't wouldn't one assume that I would be playing 4E now? Rather than fanatical attacks, perhaps if 4Ers could take a deep breath and post why they thought that the move from v3.x to 4E was one they were happy to take. I think discussing 4E in terms of v3.x is not relevant, although they are both D&D they both have very differ hearts (mechanics).
Do people think that this would be possible - or would such a topic just degrade into veiled insults and self righteousness again?
Regards again for your fine offer,
Stefan.
That would be interesting to see how people play their games.
|
I think its worth noting that we really are not (I don't think) comparing how Mr. Gygax played the game with how 4E plays the game in regard to the mechanic of save or die.
The next line in my post had essentially said this...
Though, the specter of "instant death" was there in 2e, and in 3e (though with 3e, the books asked the DMs not to overuse it)...
My point was (and still is), that a sense of entitlement crept into table-top gaming, and now player's feel that it is their inalienable right to have their characters survive past first level, and not EVER die because of some situation beyond their control (oh yeah, and wizards have to be able to cast spells all day long)...
I'm sorry, but as a DM and a player, I see unavoidable death as a part of gaming...
That being said, if I had a character that had to save or die excessively, I'd call that DM to task. But the mechanic itself, in my not so humble opinion, is a valid rule and should have stayed in the game...
Thus I called into question, the overall design philosophy of 4e (because there are other aspects of the design of 4e I dislike as well)...
But again, 4e is out, and it is what it is...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Near the tail end of 3E, message boards were stuffed with threads complaining about how useless fighters, bards, monks, gnomes, ect. were, and how broken wizards, clerics, and druids were. After the Tome of Battle came out, the consensus was that the core martial classes were obsolete.
<snip>
Just because your experience is different, that doesn't make his or anyone else's invalid. The bottom line is that enough people had and, more importantly, spoke up about the same negative experience that the 4E designers made it a point to "fix" the perceived problem.I've read lots of these complaints here on the Paizo boards and on the WOTC boards, and they all have a common thread of cognitive dissonance to them, which is the expectation/demand that martial characters like fighters and barbarians be able to deal damage at the same rate as spellcasters using their nova powers.
Justin Alexander eviscerates this trope here.
Short answer: the perceived lapse is a consequence of the 15-minute adventuring day, which 4E makes even worse, by giving martial characters 1/day nova powers as well!
In my experience the 15-minute adventuring day no longer exists in 4th Edition at all. Giving 1/day powers to martial characters wasn't done to make them burn out as fast as spellcasters. It was done to give them mechanical ways to shine especially bright a couple times per day, while still allowing them to be excellent in their own right the rest of the time.
The 15-minute adventuring day problem is, as far as I can tell, a thing of the past. Most parties are able to get in four or five solid combat encounters before feeling like they could use an extended rest, and they can usually tough it out for another two or three more if they need to. Other groups might have different experiences than mine, so YYMV, but this has held true for all six 4th Edition campaigns I've played in or run to date.
I'm sorry, but as a DM and a player, I see unavoidable death as a part of gaming...
I'd be interested in hearing how you justify this, other than on the basis of tradition. Assuming you're in favor of bringing new blood into the game, what is it about the threat of unavoidable death that would encourage more people to play the game? What about unavoidable death makes the players' experience (or the DM's, for that matter) more enjoyable?
I think the thing in that article that made me happiest was that there is an upcoming sequal to three dragon ante or 3DA as he took to calling it. I was seriously worried that the game didn't sell enough to warrant sequals especially when just playing I thought that the gem dragons from the MMII would make a perfect sequal. Anywho, that was my take of the article, happiness at learning that more 3da stuff was on the way.
Absolutely! I love 3DA (and Inn-Fighting!) and was very excited to see that they'll be adding new material to the line. It's a great way to kill time while waiting for late players to show up and the like.
What are your specific issues? If you post them i'll try and answer them as well as I can. I've been playing 4e since it was released (as DM and player) as our weekly Ptolus campiagn ended a few weeks after 4e release.
I'm no edition soldier so i'll try and keep any of that out of it, but I really Am having a good time with 4e at the moment. I also had a really good time playing 2e, 3.5, vampire and while ive not played it yet i'll think have a really good time playing Pathfinder (if I ever get the chance, and I hope i do). I've always found its the story you tell, not the rules you use that make a great RPG,. It just so happens that the rules we are using at the moment are 4e.
You are a gentleman and scholar sir.
What I would like is perhaps a new topic, perhaps called "Idiots guide to 4E". What I want to be able to ask is about how things in 4E work to produce an entertaining evening for you and your friends. After intelligent discussion NOT debate OR conversion - just understanding. I fully expect that some comment/observations may come across as negative. Seriously if they didn't wouldn't one assume that I would be playing 4E now? Rather than fanatical attacks, perhaps if 4Ers could take a deep breath and post why they thought that the move from v3.x to 4E was one they were happy to take. I think discussing 4E in terms of v3.x is not relevant, although they are both D&D they both have very differ hearts (mechanics).
Do people think that this would be possible - or would such a topic just degrade into veiled insults and self righteousness again?
Regards again for your fine offer,
Stefan.
I'd be happy to contribute my thoughts to such a thread, and I promise to rein in my defensive fervor as long as the thread remains relatively free of cheap shots against the game. I think it'd be a useful thing to have, actually. Why don't you start that thread up?
|
|
I'd be interested in hearing how you justify this
I don't tailor my campaign world to the players (they know this, and believe it or not, actually like it that way)...
That means (for example), if the 1st level PCs after hearing about the ancient red dragon on the mountain, decide to travel there, well, guess what the red dragon is having for diner?
That also means, the players have to seriously rely upon caution, investigative skills, and a bit of luck in order to survive...
I do not enjoy character death, but I certainly do not hold the player's hand when his or her characters go adventuring...
One of the things that actually drew me into table-top gaming years ago, is that in a lot of ways the game mimicked real life, in that one could have a run of serious bad luck and die because of it...
On a related note, I dislike video games where all you have to do when you're low on health, is duck and cover for a few seconds (which is why healing surges rub me the wrong way, but that's a different thread entirely)...
As for how it can enhance a player's experience, well, that would be the good old fashion thrill of beating the odds (at least that's how the players at my table look at it)...
With that sense of entitlement I spoke of upthread (and them being weaned on video games where all one does is kill the bad guy and take his stuff and gain more power for its own sake, and if one dies in the process, just hit the reload button), that's a hard sell to new blood, I realize that...
And that, IMHO, is an unfortunate shame...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I'd be interested in hearing how you justify thisI don't tailor my campaign world to the players (they know this, and believe it or not, actually like it that way)...
That means (for example), if the 1st level PCs after hearing about the ancient red dragon on the mountain, decide to travel there, well, guess what the red dragon is having for diner?
That also means, the players have to seriously rely upon caution, investigative skills, and a bit of luck in order to survive...
I do not enjoy character death, but I certainly do not hold the player's hand when his or her characters go adventuring...
One of the things that actually drew me into table-top gaming years ago, is that in a lot of ways the game mimicked real life, in that one could have a run of serious bad luck and die because of it...
On a related note, I dislike video games where all you have to do when you're low on health, is duck and cover for a few seconds (which is why healing surges rub me the wrong way, but that's a different thread entirely)...
As for how it can enhance a player's experience, well, that would be the good old fashion thrill of beating the odds (at least that's how the players at my table look at it)...
With that sense of entitlement I spoke of upthread (and them being weaned on video games where all one does is kill the bad guy and take his stuff and gain more power for its own sake, and if one dies in the process, just hit the reload button), that's a hard sell to new blood, I realize that...
And that, IMHO, is an unfortunate shame...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I'm sure it works very nicely for you and your particular group of players, but games set up like that seem to be going the way of the dinosaur. Not only is it difficult to appeal to anyone beyond those specifically looking for a simulationist take on role-playing with that sort of game, in my experience it creates far more potential problems than it solves.
While I agree that there should be consequences to heading off in search of the ancient red dragon at level 3, that's not the same as justifying a style of gameplay where "unanticipated character death", as you put it, is something to be expected. If my players take an innocent wrong turn somewhere, it would be insanely punitive of me to essentially force them to reroll their party just because I imagined a dragon living in that cave they accidentally stumbled into. While the possibility of that threat existing can foster a particular mood for the game, that threat actually manifesting itself doesn't actually improve the game's enjoyment for anyone. This is, I think, a good time to employ Schrodinger's bullet as a DM - though you may have imagined the dragon living in that cave, in the interest of maintaining the game's narrative it's a good idea to either relocate the dragon or come up with something that prevents the players from encountering said dragon or his cave. Given that you have complete control over the world the party explores, you as a DM bear full responsibility for allowing the narrative to be interrupted by a TPK (or even single PC death, which itself can foster a sense of disconnect from the adventure's narrative and, ultimately, the player's connection to the game itself).
Granted, I'm very opposed to injecting simulationist elements into a game for their own sake, so that might go a long way towards explaining why I hold this particular view. But then again, I do believe that simulationist elements without care given to their impact on gameplay are a bad thing.
|
|
I'd be happy to contribute my thoughts to such a thread, and I promise to rein in my defensive fervor as long as the thread remains relatively free of cheap shots against the game. I think it'd be a useful thing to have, actually. Why don't you start that thread up?
OK, will do. If perhaps those interested could post some guidelines that I can include in the "start up" post? Things people think will help keep it civil and achieve its goal. Education of those not so familiar with 4E will be the aim. Again please be aware that some people may say negative things about 4E - but a single rule does not make a game. Perhaps my criticisms are an artifact on taking rules out of game context?
Anyway cheers Scott for you support of the idea,
S.
PS: MY copy of PHB2 arrives in two days. If I truly disliked 4E I'd have to be a special kind of stupid to spend money on it... :)
I'd be interested in hearing how you justify thisI don't tailor my campaign world to the players (they know this, and believe it or not, actually like it that way)...
That means (for example), if the 1st level PCs after hearing about the ancient red dragon on the mountain, decide to travel there, well, guess what the red dragon is having for diner?
That also means, the players have to seriously rely upon caution, investigative skills, and a bit of luck in order to survive...
I do not enjoy character death, but I certainly do not hold the player's hand when his or her characters go adventuring...
Thing is none of these, with maybe the exception of investigative skills, maybe, are out of the game. If the DM sticks a big Red Dragon in his campaign world and the players insist on visiting it while low level there is just as much possibility of the DM then slaughtering the PCs as there was in 3.5. The monster is still far more powerful then they are and its still probably going to kill them.
Bad luck still plays a part in the game, if the bad guys hit a lot and the players miss a lot then the players lose and the dice can still dictate that. Your feeling of a 'sense of entitlement' is basically campaign specific or player specific. You might find it at some tables and not find it at others and I'm sure that was so in every edition of the game.
I suppose one could make a valid argument that there are more groups out there today that have this sense of entitlement then one would have found back in the early '80s but I'd argue that this is not really important to how either you or I play the game since strangers ought to be able to play in whatever kind of game they want - that some groups out there have some kind of entitlement issue is no concern of ours. If you want to run a more (or less) lethal version of 4E thats still perfectly possible. The DM controls what level the monsters in the game are and controls what level the traps are and one can easily slot in much more difficult challenges if that is desired so lethality is not really the issue either. In the end we come back to whether or not 'save or die', as a specific mechanic for adjudicating lethality at the table is a good thing for the game, stripped of concepts like 'sense of entitlement' and simply looked at as a way of resolving character death I'd argue that its not a particularly interesting or entertaining way to kill a player's character - there are better, by which I mean more dramatic and tension filled, ways to kill a character.
I still think some of the responsibility for the paradigm shift of "red shirt 1rst and 2nd edition" to "heroic 3rd and 4th edition" lies in the novels produced by TSR (and WotC, but it started with TSR). In the early editions, you were a red shirt, you made a character knowing and expecting he would die horribly, possibly only minutes after making him.
But towards the end of 2nd, in time to be cemented into 3rd edition design, and passed on to 4th, came this idea that all PCs are special, and stat generation methods and ability score minimums for characters all changed/dissapeared to accomodate this.
PCs were now heroes, with heroic destinies waiting to be discovered. I saw the mentality shift at the game table, and the rules shifted to acommodate it.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Personally as a writer, I enjoy crafting a good long story for PCs to explore, a heroic destiny to uncover. I'm not particularily sad the days of horrible and frequent death are gone.
To me, D&D was a collective conciousness, defined by the versimilitude of the game world expressed in the "core rules". To me, personally, 4th edition marks the largest "tremor" in that versimiltude, and it is extreme enough that I can't see 4th edition as the next stage of "D&D". That doesn't mean I think its a flawed system, or a system with no inherent worth. I just don't see it as the successor to the system I use to tell stories in the Greyhawkish flavored game world I have crafted over the years.
And regarding the "tone" of much of the 4th edition marketing, I think it could have been handled in a better way, but that is from my own perspective. 4th is doing well, which means their advertising campaign must have worked on some level. Personally, I found it distasteful and somewhat annoying, but then again, I don't enjoy films like Gamers or such either. I don't enjoy seeing my hobby mocked, nor do I enjoy seeing stereotypes portrayed, as it merely reinforces the image and continues the negative spiral guilt by association.
Disenchanter hit the issue on the head for me. 4th Ed Marketing chose a very specific tone to use, which probably drew a large crowd of non-current players simply by virtue of how anti-current player it felt. It seemed to work for them, which is great, but it also tested the loyalty of the current customer base, which just feels rather foolish to me. And I think many who would have continued to support 4th ed, even after the marketing, were turned away by the thought that the company in control of it was willing to present the image, however true or false, that they didn't respect the players of previous editions.
And regarding WoW/4th Ed comparisons, I have no problem with any one system lifting from any other system. There is nothing new anymore, only the old repainted/reassembled/reconfigured. But I take offense when the lift does not convey an impression of effort made to "make it a part of the new whole". 4th Ed lost me when I opened the PH, saw the Consecrated Ground ability of the cleric, immediately thought of WoW Palladins, and then read the ability's fluff and mechanical description to find it is EXACTLY the same as the WoW Palladin ability. The fluff could have been changed, or the mechanics could have been changed, and I would have been fine. But such an explicit attempt to copy, rather than integrate, infuriated me.
Although, to be fair, I appreciate the candor and honesty in the OPs linked article. This sort of discourse makes me hopeful for the future of 4th Ed marketing.
Will I play 4th edition? Yes, when I can no longer tell the stories I want to with 3rd, or when I read enough of 4th to cause my brain to begin creating stories that make use of its "world versimilitude". There is no doubt in my mind I will play the game. Just not now.
|
What are your specific issues? If you post them i'll try and answer them as well as I can. I've been playing 4e since it was released (as DM and player) as our weekly Ptolus campiagn ended a few weeks after 4e release.
I'm no edition soldier so i'll try and keep any of that out of it, but I really Am having a good time with 4e at the moment. I also had a really good time playing 2e, 3.5, vampire and while ive not played it yet i'll think have a really good time playing Pathfinder (if I ever get the chance, and I hope i do). I've always found its the story you tell, not the rules you use that make a great RPG,. It just so happens that the rules we are using at the moment are 4e.
You are a gentleman and scholar sir.
What I would like is perhaps a new topic, perhaps called "Idiots guide to 4E". What I want to be able to ask is about how things in 4E work to produce an entertaining evening for you and your friends. After intelligent discussion NOT debate OR conversion - just understanding. I fully expect that some comment/observations may come across as negative. Seriously if they didn't wouldn't one assume that I would be playing 4E now? Rather than fanatical attacks, perhaps if 4Ers could take a deep breath and post why they thought that the move from v3.x to 4E was one they were happy to take. I think discussing 4E in terms of v3.x is not relevant, although they are both D&D they both have very differ hearts (mechanics).
Do people think that this would be possible - or would such a topic just degrade into veiled insults and self righteousness again?
Regards again for your fine offer,
Stefan.
Talking or reading about it is fine and good, but the acid test comes when you play it. If you aren't playing the game you are unlikely to get the feel of it, no matter how much you talk about it.
To be frank, the biggest "problem" o far i have encountered is the lack of Craft and Profession skills. One of our PCs styles herself as a cook - but there is no "Cooking" skill. Of course, there wasn't really either before 3e (the 2e proficiencies were totally vague).
And regarding WoW/4th Ed comparisons, I have no problem with any one system lifting from any other system. There is nothing new anymore, only the old repainted/reassembled/reconfigured. But I take offense when the lift does not convey an impression of effort made to "make it a part of the new whole". 4th Ed lost me when I opened the PH, saw the Consecrated Ground ability of the cleric, immediately thought of WoW Palladins, and then read the ability's fluff and mechanical description to find it is EXACTLY the same as the WoW Palladin ability. The fluff could have been changed, or the mechanics could have been changed, and I would have been fine. But such an explicit attempt to copy, rather than integrate, infuriated me.
Really? EXACTLY the same?
As it turns out, they're only share a couple similarities.
The fluff, you're right, is practically identical. That's probably to make it easy to conceptualize for those coming to the game from WoW, but the designers have said many times (including in the PHB2) that you should feel free to describe your own abilities however you think they should be described.
Mechanically, the only thing they have in common is that they damage enemies with the holies. As a WoW player, alarm bells immediately went off in my head when you started to compare the two. Let's examine.
First, Consecration, the Paladin spell from World of Warcraft:
* Consecration
* Instant cast
* Self range
* Mana
* Consecrates the land beneath the Paladin, doing X Holy damage over 8 sec to enemies who enter the area.
In WoW, Consecration is an unmovable, 8-second AoE. It sits there and damages enemies inside it. That's all. It doesn't do anything else. It is a fire-and-forget spell that a Paladin gets to throw down in pitched fights to up their DPS.
Now let's look at Consecrated Ground, the Cleric prayer from Dungeons & Dragons:
I won't post the text from the power verbatim, as that's a no-no, but I'll break it down into its features. Consecrated Ground is a standard action, daily, burst 1 zone. It lasts as long as the Cleric sustains the power. It can be repositioned as a move action. It deals damage to enemies, but also heals bloodied allies within the zone.
To sum up the mechanical differences between Consecrated Ground and Consecration:
- Consecrated Ground lasts as long as it's sustained, instead of a short, fixed duration.
- Consecrated Ground is a daily power, instead of an instant cast that consumes mana.
- Consecrated Ground can be repositioned as the battle shifts, instead of being static for its duration.
- Consecrated Ground heals bloodied allies, instead of merely damaging enemies, which is arguably its primary purpose, as Consecrated Ground is generally considered to be a 5th-level Cleric's "I WIN!" button because of its ability to keep the party standing for the entire fight.
I'm not sure if this was hyperbole on your part or simply honest mistake, but calling the two abilities "EXACTLY the same" is just wrong. The designers of D&D deserve a lot more credit than you appear to be willing to give them - you essentially accused them of stealing abilities wholesale from another source without modification when that is clearly not the case at all.
So if, as you claim, the fact that Consecration and Consecrated Ground are EXACTLY the same is why 4th Edition lost you, you probably should go back and re-examine that decision. It appears you were a bit hasty.
|
|
I'd argue that this is not really important to how either you or I play the game since strangers ought to be able to play in whatever kind of game they want -
And that's my point...
You and I are old codgers when it comes to D&D (and gaming in general), and can change or tailor things to suit us based upon experience and personal preference. But the "new blood", only has the RAW.
Somebody decided for them what was and what was not considered fun (and TELL them so, in no uncertain terms)...
"Oh, but that's exactly what they did with all of the previous editions!"
No, not exactly. Even with the big changes that happened from 2e to 3e, most everything was still recognizable from past editions (the way spells worked, the way the multiverse worked, the monsters were still familiar (a unicorn was still good, a succubus was still a demon), etc...
Again, it's the philosophy of the game's design that I have issue with...
The game on it's own is sound, but it has taken too far a step away from what I (and everyone else I speak with outside of the internet) consider to be D&D...
Anyway...
I think we have gotten WAY off topic with this...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
(a unicorn was still good, a succubus was still a demon)
Oddly, the alignment of a unicorn and the classification of a succubus aren't what defines D&D for me. I wonder why.
|
|
(a unicorn was still good, a succubus was still a demon)Oddly, the alignment of a unicorn and the classification of a succubus isn't what defines D&D for me. I wonder why.
Way to take an example to an extreme...
But I'll play along...
No, in and of itself, those two EXAMPLES I used, would be but petty quibbles...
HOWEVER, they are not the only two things changed that rubbed me the wrong way, they were but two of MANY MORE separate and distinct changes made that rubbed me the wrong way! Add them all together and presto, one has a game that to me is but a shell of what I consider to be D&D...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Way to take an example to an extreme...(a unicorn was still good, a succubus was still a demon)Oddly, the alignment of a unicorn and the classification of a succubus isn't what defines D&D for me. I wonder why.
They were your examples of reasons you thought D&D was no longer D&D.
But I'll play along...
No, in and of itself, those two EXAMPLES I used, would be petty quibbles...
HOWEVER, they are not the only two things changed that rubbed me the wrong way, they were but two of MANY more separate and distinct changes made that rubbed me the wrong way! Add them all together and presto, one has a game that to me is but a shell of what I consider to be D&D...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I understand what you mean, Digitalelf. I doubt that things like the unicorn's alignment and succubus' classification actually are contributive to your perception of whether or not D&D is D&D. It's far more likely that other, more significant changes set that perception in stone and you tacked on these other, minor changes after the fact. Which is fine, that's how we work.
But really, ignoring for the moment the degree to which I disagree with your perception of D&D, who cares if it is still D&D or not? It's a really, really fun game regardless of what you decide to call it. Tradition for tradition's sake is pretty pointless when it comes to something as trivial as a board game. And if you want a dose of what you consider D&D, well, your old books are as intact as they've always been. If it'll make it easier to swallow, just pretend that 4th Edition is called Chimeras & Catacombs or something. It probably won't have any effect on how much you're able to enjoy the game.
Fair is fair. Your examination of the mechanics of Consecrated Ground reveal that they are not at all identical. In my defense, it was not hyperbole, but an actual honest mistake. I freely admit that I barely looked over the mechanics of the power, because I was turned completely off by the extreme lack of difference in the fluff description. Which by your own admission, was nearly identical. The fact that the power's name was instantly evocative of the WoW power was likewise unhelpful in not encouraging such a comparison.
Fluff can be changed. Fluff is the easiest to change, and also what has the greatest effect. Fluff is what we "see" happening in the game world. You can create infinite variety simply by altering the fluff and leaving the mechanics untouched. Bizzare fighting styles, new and interesting monsters, spells, special attacks, and the like, can all be created simply by reworking the fluff of existing ones, rather than creating new mechanics.
Creating mechanics is the hard part, to insure balance, rule compatibility, and the like. Fluff is simple. Which is why it bothered me so to see a power which had, to my view, zero effort put into changing the fluff. Consecrated ground could have said, "The area glows as if lit from beneath by white light, and motes of positive energy rise up from the ground like fireflys." I would have kept reading if that was what prefaced the power.
I'm an english major with a focus on writing. I had the rules for intellectual property and plagarism drilled into my head from day one of my education, and while the letter of those rules likely has little bearing on this, the spirit of those rules colors my outlook greatly. To me, 4th edition, at least in the area of Consecrated Ground, and likely other areas from the parts I looked at, brought an element of plagarism, or at least sloth, that I simply do not wish to encourage.
Again, I have no problem with the system, it is the perception of the attitude of the designers which is where I find myself unhappy. And to me, that matters. I expect excellence, professionalism, and integrity from anyone who wishes to release a professional product, because the world is full of products whose producers contain little if not none of those traits. Hence my appreciation for the designer's candor in the OPs linked interview, even if I disagree with him on certain points.
It's a really, really fun game regardless of what you decide to call it. Tradition for tradition's sake is pretty pointless when it comes to something as trivial as a board game. And if you want a dose of what you consider D&D, well, your old books are as intact as they've always been. If it'll make it easier to swallow, just pretend that 4th Edition is called Chimeras & Catacombs or something. It probably won't have any effect on how much you're able to enjoy the game.
A fun game? True, relative to those people who enjoy the game that is presented by it. Battleship is a fun game. Tag is a fun game. But I know many who don't find Battleship, nor Tag, very fun at all. Fun is relative to the individual's enjoyment.
Tradition for tradition's sake is pointless in general, regardless of whether it is a game, a breakfast routine, a religion, or a government. But we do it anyway, because that how we are. Its a part of our psyche to become comfortable in patterns.
Hrmmm, I really shouldn't be posting at this hour. I can feel myself getting more combative. Time for me to go to sleep.
|
|
who cares if it is still D&D or not?
For over 25 years, D&D has been a constant in my life. There has been a steady stream of new product in which I could go out and buy (with the exception of the late 90's when TSR went silent from the buy-out)...
There have always been similar games (Earthdawn, Tunnells & Trolls, etc., etc.), but not one of those has held my attention or interest the way D&D has...
With all the changes that were made in 4e, I don't see the same game anymore (similar, but different)...
It's now like those other fantasy RPGs, it just doesn't hold my attention or interest...
if you want a dose of what you consider D&D, well, your old books are as intact as they've always been.
Yes, I still have all my old books, and I use them too! Recently finished up an 8 year long campaign set in the Forgotten Realms...
But now, unless I embrace 4e, I cannot further purchase any new D&D books (and the number of 3e books is now obviously finite)...
I'm sorry, but I cannot help but feel disappointed by this fact...
It's a really, really fun game regardless of what you decide to call it.
As I've said before, there is nothing wrong with the game in and of itself. It's just not the game for me...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
It's a really, really fun game regardless of what you decide to call it. Tradition for tradition's sake is pretty pointless when it comes to something as trivial as a board game. And if you want a dose of what you consider D&D, well, your old books are as intact as they've always been. If it'll make it easier to swallow, just pretend that 4th Edition is called Chimeras & Catacombs or something. It probably won't have any effect on how much you're able to enjoy the game.A fun game? True, relative to those people who enjoy the game that is presented by it. Battleship is a fun game. Tag is a fun game. But I know many who don't find Battleship, nor Tag, very fun at all. Fun is relative to the individual's enjoyment.
Tradition for tradition's sake is pointless in general, regardless of whether it is a game, a breakfast routine, a religion, or a government. But we do it anyway, because that how we are. Its a part of our psyche to become comfortable in patterns.
Hrmmm, I really shouldn't be posting at this hour. I can feel myself getting more combative. Time for me to go to sleep.
It's cool. And yeah, there are a lot of games that can be less or more fun depending on the individual. But I think the general take on 4th Edition is that, regardless of what you may think of its faithfulness to what has come before, as a game it is pretty entertaining. Your mileage may vary, but I've seen a lot of 3rd Edition stalwarts here admitting that 4th Edition is a solid game, even if it's not what they prefer given a choice.
But I think the general take on 4th Edition is that, regardless of what you may think of its faithfulness to what has come before, as a game it is pretty entertaining. Your mileage may vary, but I've seen a lot of 3rd Edition stalwarts here admitting that 4th Edition is a solid game, even if it's not what they prefer given a choice.
The artwork and bookbinding are an improvement over 1st ed, certainly. The attitude which call prose "fluff" OTOH is a horrible turn of events, especially when coupled with giant battlemats filled with minis that look like something from a Warhammer game from twenty years ago.
I particularly dislike that the designer jargon of "Striker" "Controller" "Leader" and whatever the fourth one is was put in front of the public. It makes players think of mechanics first and roleplaying second. Better to have called the roles "Harpo" "Chico" "Groucho" and "Zeppo"--at least that would have made people think about roleplaying first.
To be fair, they could have gone the easy route and used "tank, dps, crowd control, and heals". Credit where credit is due, they stepped up to the plate and made something new in the class classification. Granted, thats part of what stepped it further from my personal image of D&D, but at least they put in the effort.
Oddly, the alignment of a unicorn and the classification of a succubus aren't what defines D&D for me. I wonder why.
I understand DigitalElf completely here. Individually, a few changes here and there don't seem to add up to much. But they help define what D&D is or was compared to other class-based fantasy RPGs.
3e's design group deliberately stuck to that body of D&D lore while 4e deliberately tacked away from it, when it was unnecessary to do so. And I find that unfortunate. It interferes with my sense of D&D as an ongoing project. It puts a break in the continuity.
I understand DigitalElf completely here. Individually, a few changes here and there don't seem to add up to much. But they help define what D&D is or was compared to other class-based fantasy RPGs.
3e's design group deliberately stuck to that body of D&D lore while 4e deliberately tacked away from it, when it was unnecessary to do so. And I find that unfortunate. It interferes with my sense of D&D as an ongoing project. It puts a break in the continuity.
Of course, they also returned some continuity that 3rd edition took away. The main example I can think of is the Half-Orc as the sneaky guy instead of the thug - this hearkens back to 1st edition days. And there are many other things, from monsters to class powers, that show they're looking at early D&D for a lot of their inspiration. The fact that it doesn't match the changes 3rd edition introduced to the game doesn't bother me, since I still have all my older books too and can see the continuity through them.
The other place they're getting a lot of inspiration from is mythology. Which is exactly the approach that Paizo is taking with a lot of their own re-invisioning of monsters. Which has made converting Paizo stuff to 4E even easier, in some places, than it already would have been.
|
|
...but I've seen a lot of 3rd Edition stalwarts here admitting that 4th Edition is a solid game, even if it's not what they prefer given a choice.
I'll cop to this. 4e is a good system, it just isn't how I wish to express my fantasy gaming. Now, if they'd make a superheroes game out of the system...
|
|
...bookbinding are an improvement over 1st ed...
Maybe the art (subjective, though, love me some Trampier...), but, with the exception of Unearthed Arcana, the bookbinding in the first edition AD&D books is amazing. My original books lasted 20 years of constant use, abuse and weathering, and are probably still in great shape, wherever they may be. I've worn out 3x books in a few years, and 4e books seem to be pretty much the same, quality-wise. Not that any of the new books are poor quality, but the old books were bound much stronger...
|
I particularly dislike that the designer jargon of "Striker" "Controller" "Leader" and whatever the fourth one is was put in front of the public. It makes players think of mechanics first and roleplaying second.
Why is that such a big deal?
Given that it might break the fourth wall, but maybe they did it precisely because players all over the world have thought in those terms for decades?Maybe not those exact terms, but even when we had to ink our own dice in the primordial sludge, it was common knowledge that you were mad to form a party without a cleric, because 'every party needs a healer'. Just as 'every party needs a thief to find traps', and 'every party needs a magic-user ()' and 'every class needs a hand-to-hand guy'.
Another unwritten rule was 'Don't even bother with the Druid, Assassin, Illusionist or Monk unless you've got five or more players, so one can play the spare'.
A quarter-century later, suddenly this is a terrible concept?
Better to have called the roles "Harpo" "Chico" "Groucho" and "Zeppo"--at least that would have made people think about roleplaying first.
Or Adolph, Leonard, Julius and Herbert?
What does that make the Bard? Gummo?|
|
...but I've seen a lot of 3rd Edition stalwarts here admitting that 4th Edition is a solid game, even if it's not what they prefer given a choice.I'll cop to this. 4e is a good system, it just isn't how I wish to express my fantasy gaming. Now, if they'd make a superheroes game out of the system...
Derek - I was just telling my kids the other day what a great supers game the 4E system would make ...
I prefer a low fantasy, "Farmer Bob to Dread Pirate Roberts" approach, that I can do in 4E but it breaks with a lot of the default setting/fluff, which is something I don't care to do. So, when I want to embrace that style, I'll play older editions.
4E however is a pretty good game, even if it doesn't have that intrinsic link to my personal favorite fantasy trope. I've had nothing but fun playing it, and we have had no problems role playing whatsoever. The Druid saying "I cast Faerie Fire" in 4E doesn't sound much different from the Druid saying "I cast Faerie Fire" in previous editions.
I'm sure it works very nicely for you and your particular group of players, but games set up like that seem to be going the way of the dinosaur. Not only is it difficult to appeal to anyone beyond those specifically looking for a simulationist take on role-playing with that sort of game, in my experience it creates far more potential problems than it solves.
While I agree that there should be consequences to heading off in search of the ancient red dragon at level 3, that's not the same as justifying a style of gameplay where "unanticipated character death", as you put it, is something to be expected. If my players take an innocent wrong turn somewhere, it would be insanely punitive of me to essentially force them to reroll their party just because I imagined a dragon living in that cave they accidentally stumbled into.
I've been lurking in these discussions for quite some time. I'm an older D&Der, having started out with the first Basic Set and soon after that, original AD&D. I am usually a DM, but I've been playing 4E as a player for several months. I really am trying to give it a fair shot... but it's just not living up to successor status. But, I also wasn't a fan of the original 3E when it came out... it wasn't until 3.5 that I was fully pulled out of my 2E games I was running. That was thanks, almost single handedly to Paizo's products. But I digress...
I couldn't disagree more with the above sentiment. First, I don't think this style of game is going anywhere as long as Pathfinder and 3.5 sytle product endures. If 4E is indeed successful with the younger generation, then that game style might become (if it isn't already) a minority... but it's certainly not disappearing. It would indeed be a cruel DM that intentionally puts a red dragon in an easily discovered area for a 3rd level party, depending on what purpose that dragon is supposed to play. There are, even in 4E, other ways to deal with a dragon... the DM might actually intend for the player to talk to it... yeah, I know... it's a foreign concept now in 4E as far as I can tell... but it's still a possibility. However...
By removing the threat of accidental death, you are removing one of the better sources of roleplaying, humor and over all enjoyment from a role playing game. Now, I think 4E is still very deadly in some respects, but in others, not so much. I don't think the original post that this was responding to implied that "unanticpated character death" was to be FREQUENTLY or even REGULARLY expected. Sure, low HP characters have a tough time at the low levels, but if bad luck or failed save deaths are overly frequent, no one is going to like that, including the DM. But, to me, that doesn't mean at ALL that this aspect should have been removed from the game.
Like many others, this is only one thing that has changed in 4E that I perceive as a loss. There are numerous others. The feel of 4E overall, to me, is lacking. I won't be buying any more 4E product beyond what I already have. However, I do hope it draws in a younger audience, because that, more than anything else, is what will drive the success of the game. The only gamers I see picking up 4E stuff in my local game store are younger gamers, and I consider that a good sign. They don't have to grow up with my D&D to keep the hobby healthy.
On topic, I agree with some of the preceptions related to the tone of the article. Could it (and other 4E marketing) have been done better? Absolutely. Does it need to be? That's debatable, and relative purely to how much they want to cater to the older audience. There are some insightful (and to me disappointing) bits in there about how things were developed.
Derek - I was just telling my kids the other day what a great supers game the 4E system would make ...
Being a player of City of Heroes, I also immediately picked up on this. Once I mentioned it, my friend who is running our current 4E game started begging me to do a CoH conversion to 4E so he can run a Hero game. I'm not much on supers games in general... I'm too attached to levelling as a player, and most supers games aren't set up like that. But who knows, I might convert it for him if I dedicate enough free time to it.
|
|
Being a player of City of Heroes, I also immediately picked up on this. Once I mentioned it, my friend who is running our current 4E game started begging me to do a CoH conversion to 4E so he can run a Hero game. I'm not much on supers games in general... I'm too attached to levelling as a player, and most supers games aren't set up like that. But who knows, I might convert it for him if I dedicate enough free time to it.
And maybe one day Eden Studios will have enough cash in hand to actually publish the CoH RPG they wrote...but I doubt it.
- @FireIron (FireIron, Justice, 50 Inv/Fire Tanker)
|
|
I particularly dislike that the designer jargon of "Striker" "Controller" "Leader" and whatever the fourth one is was put in front of the public. It makes players think of mechanics first and roleplaying second.Why is that such a big deal?
Given that it might break the fourth wall, but maybe they did it precisely because players all over the world have thought in those terms for decades?
Until 4E, character classes described what kind of role the character had in the storyline. Starting with 4E, they describe what the character's role in combat is.
If combat roles were all you were concerned with...no big deal. But for RPers it introduces dissociated mechanics that make RPing much more difficult.
|
|
Derek - I was just telling my kids the other day what a great supers game the 4E system would make ...
Being a player of City of Heroes, I also immediately picked up on this. Once I mentioned it, my friend who is running our current 4E game started begging me to do a CoH conversion to 4E so he can run a Hero game. I'm not much on supers games in general... I'm too attached to levelling as a player, and most supers games aren't set up like that. But who knows, I might convert it for him if I dedicate enough free time to it.
Hahahah! This is EXACTLY the game I was thinking about. The levelling mechanic in CoH could easily be converted to 4E. The only problem I really foresee is being able to expand the powers enough to last 30 levels.
And maybe one day Eden Studios will have enough cash in hand to actually publish the CoH RPG they wrote...but I doubt it.
While I fully understand the personal and business issues behind this, I have completely given up on George's CoH. The time to release this game has come and passed. I laud George's priorities (family first) and I feel for his situation, but it's coming up on 4 years. I'd be surprised if he even has a license any more, and even if he did I wouldn't hold my breath hoping for it to be renewed.
I particularly dislike that the designer jargon of "Striker" "Controller" "Leader" and whatever the fourth one is was put in front of the public. It makes players think of mechanics first and roleplaying second.Why is that such a big deal?
Given that it might break the fourth wall, but maybe they did it precisely because players all over the world have thought in those terms for decades?Until 4E, character classes described what kind of role the character had in the storyline. Starting with 4E, they describe what the character's role in combat is.
If combat roles were all you were concerned with...no big deal. But for RPers it introduces dissociated mechanics that make RPing much more difficult.
I'm going to have to disagree with this, with the understanding/caveat that it only relates to MY GROUP.
While the roles are discussed during party/character creation, when we got to the actual game, not ONCE did anyone refer to their part in the game as striker/leader/controller/defender. No one said "defender, get in there and block the line" etc. We had absolutely no problems disassociating the technical jargon from the game, and I would even go so far as to say that if someone is having such a problem is because they are so caught up in the change of the game that they are unable to actually play the game - in other words, someone is so 'disgusted' at the changes that they literally cannot "let it go" and keep bringing it up at the table (and understand I am not calling them to fault for not liking 4E - liking something is a highly subjective opinion, and not everyone shares the same opinions.)
My group is just that - a little group of nine people gathering to game. We don't represent any significant majority or cross section of people. What I can say about my little group is that we are playing a series of encounters that are SPECIFICALLY designed to teach the rules only. I'll guarantee you will find a deeper plot synopsis on the side of a Dixie riddle cup. Yet, role playing is still occurring here! I strongly believe that role playing is the purview of the player, not the rules.
|
you know I bought city of heroes to play and it couldn't run on my computer (even with cable internet when I hit the web it would laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag).
I can see 4th ed making an awesome base system for a city of heroes game and I could easily create 30 levels of powers for classes. man this has got my brain swirling. I bet I could design a supers game easily with a bit more familiarity with the system. Heh, if I ever get out my two PF games and have a no game time, maybe I'll fill the empty hours doing just that.
|
|
I'm sure it works very nicely for you and your particular group of players, but games set up like that seem to be going the way of the dinosaur. Not only is it difficult to appeal to anyone beyond those specifically looking for a simulationist take on role-playing with that sort of game, in my experience it creates far more potential problems than it solves.
While I agree that there should be consequences to heading off in search of the ancient red dragon at level 3, that's not the same as justifying a style of gameplay where "unanticipated character death", as you put it, is something to be expected. If my players take an innocent wrong turn somewhere, it would be insanely punitive of me to essentially force them to reroll their party just because I imagined a dragon living in that cave they accidentally stumbled into.
I've been lurking in these discussions for quite some time. I'm an older D&Der, having started out with the first Basic Set and soon after that, original AD&D. I am usually a DM, but I've been playing 4E as a player for several months. I really am trying to give it a fair shot... but it's just not living up to successor status. But, I also wasn't a fan of the original 3E when it came out... it wasn't until 3.5 that I was fully pulled out of my 2E games I was running. That was thanks, almost single handedly to Paizo's products. But I digress...
I couldn't disagree more with the above sentiment. First, I don't think this style of game is going anywhere as long as Pathfinder and 3.5 sytle product endures. If 4E is indeed successful with the younger generation, then that game style might become (if it isn't already) a minority... but it's certainly not disappearing. It would indeed be a cruel DM that intentionally puts a red dragon in an easily discovered area for a 3rd level party, depending on what purpose that dragon is supposed to play. There are, even in 4E, other ways to deal with a dragon... the DM might actually intend for the player to talk to...
I have to disagree. My guys are old time gamers from way back - 20 years plus - and they had no interest whatsoever in Paizo and Pathfinder. I was slightly disappointed as I wanted to give PFRPG a shot, but after succumbing slightly grumpily to playing 4e I've grown to really like it. As a DM the simplicity is great - I actually have time to talk to my wife on the weekend before the next session, instead of being buried in books for hours painfully putting an encounter together. And I don't think there is really a huge difference in overall play experience between 4e and 3e - I'm trying to think of what is really different and it I can't really. It still a bunch of guys old enough to know better sitting in a room and having a laugh in the fantasy world. So fighters have spells? <shrug>
Derek - I was just telling my kids the other day what a great supers game the 4E system would make ...
Being a player of City of Heroes, I also immediately picked up on this. Once I mentioned it, my friend who is running our current 4E game started begging me to do a CoH conversion to 4E so he can run a Hero game. I'm not much on supers games in general... I'm too attached to levelling as a player, and most supers games aren't set up like that. But who knows, I might convert it for him if I dedicate enough free time to it.
Hahahah! This is EXACTLY the game I was thinking about. The levelling mechanic in CoH could easily be converted to 4E. The only problem I really foresee is being able to expand the powers enough to last 30 levels.
Actually, it's not that hard... I already looked at that part of it. Of course, we're talking about a straight port, not adding significant stuff to the CoH system. Since CoH is a 50 level game, condensing those down to 30 for 4E actually makes the powers show up pretty frequently. The selection may not quite be the same as a typical 4E D&D character, but to be honest, paring down the powers might be a good thing and make for a faster playing game, which I think would be pretty important for 4E CoH. On the down side, tracking all the secondary effects of the powers (like the accuracy debuff of darkness powers) will be a royal pain.
The other thing that immediately jumped out was the recharge mechanism that already exists for Monsters in 4E is perfect for the player side of a CoH port as well. It would require removing (to some degree) the at-will/encounter/daily designation, but given how long some recharge times are in CoH, I don't think it will be too problematic. And instead of power sources (martial, arcane, etc) you use Origins (mutant, tech, magic, etc). This opens up the possibility of making Origins more useful than they are in the online game, but we haven't delved into that at all.
There are, even in 4E, other ways to deal with a dragon... the DM might actually intend for the player to talk to it... yeah, I know... it's a foreign concept now in 4E as far as I can tell... but it's still a possibility.
This has NOTHING to do with what we were discussing. If the DM intends for you to talk to the dragon then it's hardly accidental, unavoidable death, which is what we were talking about. The problem I highlighted was with players making an innocent wrong turn, winding up somewhere the DM didn't plan for them to be for another fifteen levels, and instead of using Schrodinger's bullet to ensure that the game's narrative is not destroyed by an unfortunate run in with a breath weapon, decides that the dragon is there, is hungry, and wants to kill the poor low-level party anyway. This has been explained, by a number of DMs (particularly those who favor 3rd Edition), as their preferred way of DMing. I disagree, and further hold that such a style of DMing is actually harmful to the game.
It's even more disappointing that you decided to throw yet another tired baseless criticism ("Talking to dragons is a foreign concept in 4th Edition!") into the mix. If your gaming groups do not possess the creative chops necessary to make a dragon into anything but its stat block, that's your problem, not the game's. D&D, of any edition, gives you everything you need to make a dragon into the subject of character interaction if the DM wills it.
|
|
(a unicorn was still good, a succubus was still a demon)Oddly, the alignment of a unicorn and the classification of a succubus aren't what defines D&D for me. I wonder why.
For me it sort of does, and I think for some others also. The above is true (what Succubus and Unicorn are/were), that and Green Dragons breath poison gas to boot! Just before someone points out they still do... The point is its like people "starting" to bugger about with reality. I like to think that when I throw a ball up, it'll come back down. But its not reality you cry, in away such creatures have been around for most of our lives and as such have become what you expect. Not that change is bad, just change for the sake of change is not justification for change. Such little modifications are at the heart of the crowd who yell "but its not D&D". More correctly its just not the D&D we played in the 80/90's. So to bring this back to the topic - I think WotC is trying to really make a statement that 4E is NOT v3.x with fixes, it is a complete new game. As has been pointed out they are saying 4E is better than v3.x - but let's face it they OWN both so I guess they are entitled. Now if they start saying 4E is better than PFRPG (or any other fantasy RPG) that would be grounds to cry unfair.
Lightning spewing Green Dragon anyone...
|
|
I disagree, and further hold that such a style of DMing is actually harmful to the game.
Only if you assume that the players don't agree to this style of DMing. And as far as I am concerned, I embrace this style as a player and as a DM. But as a DM, I don't use it if my players aren't comfortable with it. And in so far as 4e hindered this style of play I'd prefer older editions (I don't say and I don't believe that 4e actually does this).
I have to admit that Rob Heinsoo's article has made me rethink some things about 4E. It's not that I agree with everything he says ( I don't) but I appreciate the attitude which with he explains why they changed what they changed.
In fact it has made me think about giving 4E another try.
Not that change is bad, just change for the sake of change is not justification for change.
I haven't yet seen a change made between 3rd and 4th Edition where justification for the change doesn't exist. You may not agree with that particular justification, but I don't think change-for-the-sake-of-change has ever cropped up. Tradition-for-the-sake-of-tradition, however, is a mindset that seems to be far more notable in those who dislike 4th Edition.
Only if you assume that the players don't agree to this style of DMing.
I'm not specifically discussing his players. As I mentioned in a post earlier, it's great if your group prefers this. On the whole, however, I think that advocating such a style of running games does more harm than good.
I have to admit that Rob Heinsoo's article has made me rethink some things about 4E. It's not that I agree with everything he says ( I don't) but I appreciate the attitude which with he explains why they changed what they changed.
In fact it has made me think about giving 4E another try.
I hope you do. I think a lot of people initially became frustrated with what they perceived as unjustified changes without investigating why those changes were really made. As I noted above, even if you don't agree with the changes it sometimes is helpful just to know that justification existed for them.
Now if they start saying 4E is better than PFRPG (or any other fantasy RPG) that would be grounds to cry unfair.
Uh...James Jacobs has stated on these very boards that PFRPG is better than 4th Edition:
4th Edition's a fine game. Pathfinder RPG is better.
Not that there's anything wrong with James believing his game is better, but are you sure you're not holding a double standard, here?
|
|
I think a lot of people initially became frustrated with what they perceived as unjustified changes without investigating why those changes were really made.
To be honest what annoyed me initially (and I actually was kinda euphoric when 4e was announced) wasn't the rule changes but their marketing and especially what they did with the Realms (and other fluff changes).
But the whole discussion made me think about my general approach to rule systems and I realized that I actually don't care. I used to play in any system someone was willing to run and rules have never been what defined "fun". It has ever been the story.
I learned about these boards accidentally quite some years ago. And what made me stay - apart from a great community - hasn't been Paizo's support for 3.5 but their ability to tell great stories.
Now I love what they are doing with the PFRPG and I absolutely plan to make this my new system of choice. But as much as I love Golarion it hasn't stopped me to convert Paizo adventures to Toril or Eberron (for some strange reason I'm recently thinking about Al-Qadim). So why should my preference for 3.5/PFRPG stop me to do the same with regards to the rules system? Especially if those things which DO annoy me about 4E won't play any role in such a conversion.
Now if they start saying 4E is better than PFRPG (or any other fantasy RPG) that would be grounds to cry unfair.Uh...James Jacobs has stated on these very boards that PFRPG is better than 4th Edition:
4th Edition's a fine game. Pathfinder RPG is better.Not that there's anything wrong with James believing his game is better, but are you sure you're not holding a double standard, here?
Which he immediately followed with saying...
I'd rather write for and work on the game that I feel is the better game.
So, he then says he feels rather than giving it as a fact the previous quote.
I understand why you edited it out though, it kind of reduces the impact of your point, but are you sure you aren't holding a double standard here?
If I did that same thing to a WotC quote, I would imagine you would be among the first to correct me. But, to me, since this is a comment reflecting Paizo rather thant WotC, your standards seem to drop drastically.
I think a lot of people initially became frustrated with what they perceived as unjustified changes without investigating why those changes were really made.To be honest what annoyed me initially (and I actually was kinda euphoric when 4e was announced) wasn't the rule changes but their marketing and especially what they did with the Realms (and other fluff changes).
But the whole discussion made me think about my general approach to rule systems and I realized that I actually don't care. I used to play in any system someone was willing to run and rules have never been what defined "fun". It has ever been the story.
I learned about these boards accidentally quite some years ago. And what made me stay - apart from a great community - hasn't been Paizo's support for 3.5 but their ability to tell great stories.
Now I love what they are doing with the PFRPG and I absolutely plan to make this my new system of choice. But as much as I love Golarion it hasn't stopped me to convert Paizo adventures to Toril or Eberron (for some strange reason I'm recently thinking about Al-Qadim). So why should my preference for 3.5/PFRPG stop me to do the same with regards to the rules system? Especially if those things which DO annoy me about 4E won't play any role in such a conversion.
If you're considering running Paizo adventures converted to 4th Edition, I run a little website that you might find helpful.
So, feel.
I understand why you edited it out though, it kind of reduces the impact of your point, but are you sure you aren't holding a double standard here?
If I did that same thing to a WotC quote, I would imagine you would be among the first to correct me. But, to me, since this is a comment reflecting Paizo rather thant WotC, your standards seem to drop drastically.
Man, I don't care whether James says "PFRGP is better than 4th Edition" or "I feel PFRPG is better than 4th Edition". That's neither here nor there. Inserting the word "feel" (even though he didn't) doesn't suddenly make it more of an opinion and less of a fact - it was always his opinion, just like it would be WotC's opinion to say the opposite. And I'm not getting on James' case, he has every right (as does WotC!) to believe his game of choice - or game he designed - is best. But saying "If WotC started claiming that 4th Edition was better than PFRPG people would have a right to get upset," but doing nothing when the same happens with a company that the individual happens to be particularly infatuated with strikes me as a double-standard. To be honest, nothing should happen in either case, but it seems like people are prescribing unnecessarily heinous standards to WotC that they're unwilling to hold Paizo to.