I think the worse thing WotC did -- after murdering the mags -- was peeing in our Cheerios.
-W. E. Ray
I hate it when that happens.
|
1) The removal of a great resource (Dungeon and Dragon magazines) without putting up an alternative.There are online versions of the magazines. By removing the print copies it allowed others to move into the vacuum like Kobold Quarterly.
I do enjoy KQ, but IIRC WotC stated they wanted to put something out along the lines of the two Paizo publications. So far no dice. Not that I'm surprised. As to on-line versions, I find I get more out of reading a hard copy than from a computer screen. Call me old-school, but I like holding the product whenever possible.
EDIT: Forgive me if I do not want to trust WotC in the realm of digital media (read on-line versions of Dungeon and Dragon magazines) ... when a company pulls out PDF access with minimal notice once, it will be quite a while before I would trust that company for that type of product again.
2) The way they have treated the 3PP (forcing an either/or option for 3.xe/4e support).The GSL(sp?) has been changed to allow more flexibility as Goodman's Dungeon Crawl Classic recently showed.
Be that as it may, their initial roll-out sucked. It was extremely restrictive. It is to this I am referring. I truly believe this change came about because they realized (finally) they were screwing their customer base with the original version.
EDIT: Perhaps I missed something here. Are you saying that 3PP are no longer restricted to either 3.xe or 4e, but can now pursue both systems? If so, I had not yet heard this and actually a decent move on WotC's part for the 3PP. If not the issue still stands.
3) Personally costing me money with their PDF shenanigans. I did not find out about the PDF issue the night it kicked into effect and after the deadline. When there was an extension, my work schedule kept me from being able to take advantage of that very small window. The end result, I'm out twenty some-odd dollars in pdfs because of this nonsense.In today's digital age it is upon every consumer to back up their electronic materials. It is not the fault of any company if a customer chooses not to do that.
To some extent I agree. However, when one purchases a product from a site and part of that purchase is the ability to go back and download the file numerous times at later dates, the back up argument becomes less potent. The fact that my purchase came with what was in essence a built in back up was part of my reason for purchasing the PDFs.
Now, I'm not interested in dealing with the moral ranking of companies' behavior, but in principle, what's wrong with a group of customers resorting to demonstrations of their unhappiness or efforts to (legally) bring down what they cannot change? Now myself, I generally like to avoid demonstrations, so I understand if you don't care for them in any situation, but the anger behind them and its persistence in various actions do seem understandable to me.Isn't there a big difference between Exxonn and WotC? That aside, I didn't say anybody had to like WotC. When I first heard the great wheel was coming down I was all set to stop buying books from WotC. I'm saying it never turned to hate for me. If they're putting out a game you don't like, then don't buy. You can freely discuss what you don't like about the game. I didn't post in the boycott thread or the what I don't like about 4e thread. But, why did putting out a new game make people angry when those people don't have to buy the new game. Pax is all day with 3.x and the retro clones, but he's still showing a lot of anger towards Wizards, and all they did was run a crappy marketing campaign for a game he doesn't have to buy.
Like I said, I'm not interested in moral ranking in this case, though I belief in it in general (It's worse to push my granny down and then run her over than it is to insult her. But insult my granny--I'll still get angry at you.) If a company took away support from your product and started a new one you as a loyal customer have no interest in, and you are left with much less support for your product than what you had, you might be angry. Especially if they were not only pulling all support, but forcing others out of continuing to provide you the support that would enable you to continue with your chosen product. If you felt that the customer group you were a part of was traded for another one, that anger might be exacerbated. And apparently some customers still are.
To some extent I agree. However, when one purchases a product from a site and part of that purchase is the ability to go back and download the file numerous times at later dates, the back up argument becomes less potent. The fact that my purchase came with what was in essence a built in back up was part of my reason for purchasing the PDFs.
Let me say that I am not trying to say your feelings are illogical, they are not. Just that there may be facts that are being ignored.
As for the above, I wonder, do you hold any negative feelings towards the companies that actually sold you that false bill of sale? WotC didn't indicate that you'd have continuous access to these files, so who did? If a company indicated that you would be allowed to continous access but didn't actually have the right to guarantee that, wouldn't that company be the one at fault?
Of course many of these pdf sellers have said something to the extent of, "Well, technically we never told you that you would have continuous access. That was just something our customers infered from the fact that we didn't set a specific number of downloads." To me, that is as much legal-speak as anything I've ever heard out of WotC.
Actually though, I think the situation was a good thing in the long run. It was one of those watershed moments that bring a situation into focus. Now people know who actually owns those files on the various sites (which I think alot of people didn't really understand), it is not the customer who purchased it, it is not the company selling it, it is the producer. And at any time for any reason, those files could be yanked. This is something that everyone who purchases pdfs should know and be made aware of. You purchase it, GET IT BACKED UP, because it might not be there tomorrow.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well, at least at the Guardtower says the 4.e sales are not at the 3.x levels.
I know that 4.x isn't tanking, but it suffers from a down market and a greater competion. 3.x benefits from compatability. How hard is it really to turn Burnt Offerings into True 20? Or C&C?
When I get my Pathfinder RPG, I plan to run at least some games at the Guardtower. They may not be getting my Pai$o budget, but they do get some, and more importantly, if I can introduce new players to Pathfinder, they see more product move. :-)
Especially if they were not only pulling all support, but forcing others out of continuing to provide you the support that would enable you to continue with your chosen product. If you felt that the customer group you were a part of was traded for another one, that anger might be exacerbated. And apparently some customers still...
But Wizards never stopped anybody from continuing to support 3.x, as evidenced by PFRPG. If you're talking about the initial GSL, well, it was up to each company to decide where to throw their support.
And they didn't trade their customer base, they, apparently, divided it. I've been playing some version of D&D for 20 years and now I play 4E, as do a lot of other long time gamers. So, a mistake maybe, and a division definately, but not a trade.
|
|
As for the above, I wonder, do you hold any negative feelings towards the companies that actually sold you that false bill of sale? WotC didn't indicate that you'd have continuous access to these files, so who did? If a company indicated that you would be allowed to continous access but didn't actually have the right to guarantee that, wouldn't that company be the one at fault?
In fact I do feel that those companies who offered the products with a certain number of downloads associated with the product should make good, financially, to those customers who made the purchase. In essence they are not living up to the agreement made at time of sale. However, had there been more of a window between WotC deciding they would cease PDF sales and the enacting of the cessation, it really would have been a moot point.
Of course many of these pdf sellers have said something to the extent of, "Well, technically we never told you that you would have continuous access. That was just something our customers infered from the fact that we didn't set a specific number of downloads." To me, that is as much legal-speak as anything I've ever heard out of WotC.
Agreed on this point.
Actually though, I think the situation was a good thing in the long run. It was one of those watershed moments that bring a situation into focus. Now people know who actually owns those files on the various sites (which I think alot of people didn't really understand), it is not the customer who purchased it, it is not the company selling it, it is the producer. And at any time for any reason, those files could be yanked. This is something that everyone who purchases pdfs should know and be made aware of. You purchase it, GET IT BACKED UP, because it might not be there tomorrow.
This runs into the slippery slope of what copyright law is in the US today. Initially, copyright law limited copyright on all material to 18 years IIRC. The duration is now so varied that it would be laughable if it were not so infuriatingly convoluted and backa$$ward. The copyright laws regarding ownership of digital media are even more so.
For example, if one were to buy a digital copy of an album, one technically does not have ownership of that copy (you have bought limited rights to use it). If, however, one buys a CD, one does have ownership of that copy and can maintain a digital copy for archival purposes (you have purchased a physical product and, under the First-sale Doctrine, own that copy). The same would apply if I had hard copies of the original 1e material that I bought vs the pdf versions I had purchased. The current copyright system is inherently broken and a new model should truly be created for the new age. But then that's a discussion for another thread.
I know this has deviated from the initial course of the thread, sorry folks.
|
I escaped the edition wars with two great games and no wounds.
To many people, our game is not a hobby. It is a lifestyle!
A lifestyle in which they have invested thousands of dollars, and time innumerable towards...
And many of these people grew up with this lifestyle...
Sure, products come and go, but if Nestlé’s Tollhouse cookies go off the market tomorrow, while many would be saddened, nobody has a vested style of life in that particular brand of cookie (except maybe the CEOs but that's not my point as unless they are fired, even they will move on with no hard feelings)...
On the other hand, many grew up (literally) reading Dragon and Dungeon magazines. These magazines, were a constant in their life, month after month, year after year (when this kind of thing happens, right or wrong, people come to take it for granted)...
Most people do not like change for the sake of change, this tends to increase as one gets older...
So after 20-30 years of certain things remaining (relatively) the same, a habit, or a routine if you will, is formed. When those things change for what many people perceive as no real reason all, feathers are ruffled...
Compound this with the mishandled marketing of 4e (by telling people that their preferred system was horrible and broken), people got hurt...
I was one of these people. I didn't escape the Edition Wars unscathed...
It happens...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Especially if they were not only pulling all support, but forcing others out of continuing to provide you the support that would enable you to continue with your chosen product. If you felt that the customer group you were a part of was traded for another one, that anger might be exacerbated. And apparently some customers still...But Wizards never stopped anybody from continuing to support 3.x, as evidenced by PFRPG. If you're talking about the initial GSL, well, it was up to each company to decide where to throw their support.
And they didn't trade their customer base, they, apparently, divided it. I've been playing some version of D&D for 20 years and now I play 4E, as do a lot of other long time gamers. So, a mistake maybe, and a division definitively, but not a trade.
The "forcing" was an attempt: it worked with some, thankfully, it did not work with all. So they did effectively stop some on-going support, which is one of the things the GSL was designed to do.
The perception of trading one set of customers for another, younger audience with different proclivities is widespread (it doesn't have to be a total trade for there to be some truth to it). You may disagree with it, and verifying or falsifying this perception may be extremely difficult or strictly impossible, but it is a perception out there that feeds the anger you are asking about. (This was never particularly my bailiwick, but it was widespread.)
OT @GW -
Thus half of the equation in giving me what I love involved the necessity of what I emphatically did not want (edition change). So in an odd way, thanks, Wizards.A case of Boethian providence?
It's a wonderful world where I post about Tolkien, Shakespeare, and my old D&D passion, and Saern meets me with Boethian providence.
|
In my own opinion, the OGL was probably the most important innovation of the 3E era. It had no precedent within the industry, drawing instead upon the model of open-source software development. The OGL allowed an entire ecosystem of independent publishers to flourish - some good, some bad, and some indifferent. WoTC never really allowed the OGL to develop to its full potential - they didn't release much OGC after the first year or two and never incorporated the best of the third-party material back into the 'official' ruleset. However, the fact remains that the OGL kick-started a revival of the hobby (which was in severe doldrums back in the late 1990s).
By contrast, the GSL seems to be a big step backwards. The restrictive terms of the license and the mishandling of its release killed off many of the third-party publishers (or at least sent them into very deep hibernation). Rather that drawing upon the open-source development model, the GSL reads like a standard contract for the use of licensed intellectual property - the kind of contract that lawyers in the entertainment industry draw up all the time.
The fact that Paizo has chosen to stick with the OGL for the Pathfinder RPG makes me very happy. Although it is unlikely that Pathfinder will attract the number of third-party publishers that 3e did in the heyday, it wouldn't surprise me if a few of the big names test the waters with a couple of Pathfinder-compatible releases. If these are successful, we might see a modest revival in the 3PP ecosystem.
I am consistently impressed that Paizo seems to 'get' the OGL far better than anybody at WoTC did after Ryan Dancey left - not only do they release most of the non-setting specific material in their books as OGC, but also they routinely use spells and monsters from other publishers (especially Green Ronin and Necromancer). I'd love to see Paizo develop an official online SRD that serves as a resource for the OGC contained in their own books - but also the best OGC from other Pathfinder-compatible publishers. I'm not sure whether this is likely to happen though.
And they didn't trade their customer base, they, apparently, divided it. I've been playing some version of D&D for 20 years and now I play 4E, as do a lot of other long time gamers. So, a mistake maybe, and a division definately, but not a trade.
Not entirely a trade, but "firing the customer" is an accurate description of the strategy inherent in 4e's design and initial roll-out. When you have a product with 30 years of (more or less) consistent underpinnings and "sacred cows," you can't make as many changes to the system (no more Vancian spellcasting, "martial powers," all special abilities as at will/per encounter/per day, even more focus on miniatures and positioning, etc.) , the default/published setting premises ("points of light," demons/ devils /succubi, dragonfolk, Forgotten Realms, etc.), the release schedule of "core" content (gnomes, half-orcs, druids, etc.), AND how you market the new edition ("4e r00lz! Other vers. teh suxx0rz!") by mistake.
WotC made (or Hasbro pushed them into) their decision to throw out (and even insult or degrade) many of the basic concepts that D&D was built on (the "sacred cows"), even if it meant alienating a significant portion of their customer base, in order to chase after a different/expanded customer base (i.e., young players and online MMO gamers) and/or tie RPG sales more tightly with miniature sales. Now, considering the size difference between the D&D/RPG community and the MMO community, I can understand why a company may want to chase after that market. However, much of what they've done in their attempts to attract that market and consolidate control over the D&D "brand" has basically burned a lot of bridges (among both the RPG community and the third party publishers) in what may ultimately turn out to be a quixotic crusade (there's no guarantee that they'll attract enough new gamers and/or MMO gamers to offset the customers they lost).
4e, as a game, is not a bad set of rules, although not to my taste. The blandness of the character options (mechanically) that results from (IMO) an over-emphasis in game balance ("when everybody is special, then no one is"), the discontinuities between the premise and execution of various abilities, and the lack of consistency/coherence between character abilities and the game setting (which has been an issue with all versions of D&D and most RPGs, but is worse in 4e because of the disconnect between premise and execution of so many of the abilities) just doesn't inspire me the way BECMI D&D, AD&D (1st and 2nd Ed), or 3.x do. Then again, as a long-time table-top gamer who doesn't play MMOs, I'm not in either of WotC's target demographics.
EDIT: Prime Evil brings up a good point regarding the OGL. There's a lot of speculation that 4e was deliberately made even more different than it absolutely needed to be to make it as incompatible as possible with existing OGC material.
This does not have to degenerate into an "edition war" (and is absolutely not an "edition" issue for me at least).
Pax did not mention anything specifically about 4E versus 3.X in his post. Personal or otherwise.
He merely commented on what he felt were the highly dubious and negatively received business practices (by some members of the community) surrounding a highly loved IP.
That will still net you a couple of insults and condescending remarks around here.
Don't let your jingles droop, KaeYoss. This thread has stayed pretty positive!
Evenin, Pax ol boy. BTW, many are the threads today where I thought, "Let Pax respond to this." Heh-heh. It generally didn't take you too long to find those threads.
|
What bothered me about Clark's post was his "perhaps only a few Pathfinder print products." What does his unhappiness with Wotc/GSL have to do with "We are still in contact with Paizo and have a good relationship there"?
My take on this Mair was that the market may not bear the sales, and Necro/Clark doesn't want to throw money out the door. It has nothing to do with satisfaction or dissatisfaction of either games or systems, but rather on the luke-warm response of distributors and other elements in the game production lifecycle to produce said products.
In other words - he's not seeing the golden paycheck at the end of the rainbow and at this time isn't willing to sink his time/finances into a product that most likely will not see full distribution exposure.
If that's the case, then I guess the best thing is for us all to go freakin nuts over the ToH:Pf Edition, and convince him otherwise! Thanks, TigerDave.
Mairkurian -
I've done a fairly good job of not getting caught up in edition wars to this point. So, I'm not going to start now. The only way to respond to a lot of these is to say why I like 4E or why I think decisions were made, and there really is no reason for me to defend 4E or WotC. I'm not a salesperson or lawyer.
There seem to have have only been two basic arguments up as to what WotC did to mistreat people (loss of $ on pdf's, and the personal tying of hobby into lifestyle), and most of the posts seem to be part of the latter. One of my questions has been answered, and my only response to it is that I don't treat anything a game company does as personally against me. I don't like the 4E Realms, so I don't run it like that, but I don't think WotC is jerks for changing it. They just went a way I wouldn't have. If ranting helps some of you feel better, then I hope you get it off your chest and we can all go back to being gamers, instead of sides in the edition war.
If ranting helps some of you feel better, then I hope you get it off your chest and we can all go back to being gamers, instead of sides in the edition war.
<shrug>
There really hasn't been very much ranting in this thread, IMO. I think most people have restrained themselves pretty well.
I don't think the industry was ever at the point where "we can all go back to being gamers" since the first non-TSR RPG. "System wars" have been with us a lot longer than "edition wars." The OGL, in addition to driving a boom in the RPG industry, put a damper on that conflict, but it's still there.
Don't let your jingles droop, KaeYoss. This thread has stayed pretty positive!
If this can only stay positive if we lie to ourselves, it is damned.
...considering that WotC Tanking would probably be the one way ticket to becoming a hobby more obscure than model railroading. If this is what you considering wishful thinking...
Sorry bro, but D&D less obscure than model railroading? No dis on our shared hobby, but model railroading eats D&D's lunch when it comes to popularity.
I think the worse thing WotC did -- after murdering the mags -- was peeing in our Cheerios.
-W. E. Ray
He's back!
Hi Molech, still the same avatar eh?
|
Let's stop and think from WotC's point of view. With the very generous OGL in 3e they lost control of their product in a way. How many 3PP had "requires 3e PHB" to play? Lots. Now WotC sells a PHB and some other company pockets cash for several books. Currently I'm staring at Stargate RPG and in fact the requirement for the PHB is almost sort of optional if you know the d20 system already. While amazingly kind of WotC to do such a thing at some stage it becomes a community service rather than a profit maker. Think as we may that WotC are ALL about profit (those greedy Hasbro lackeys) - but even our beloved Paizo may have to think twice if they faced losses and I'll even go out on a limb and say that Lisa would like to eat and perhaps buy that 4th Ferrari.
All WotC has done is create a system SO different that all bets are off when it comes to IP so they could reinvent the OGL in such a way that tighter control is maintained.
The development of Pathfinder RPG is the evolution of perhaps the most sound RPG system yet created. The potential is huge and I believe it takes a smaller company (i.e. Paizo) to realize such potential. In a way I am thankful that WotC has left the d20 system (3e speaking) behind, large companies are more prone to making "mistakes" as they can financially absorb them, smaller companies need to get things right first time.
Roll on August!
S.
This does not have to degenerate into an "edition war" (and is absolutely not an "edition" issue for me at least).
Pax did not mention anything specifically about 4E versus 3.X in his post. Personal or otherwise.
Really? The line:
Prematurely released a shoddy edition that immediately has errata. Demonstrates lack of coherency and respect for 30+ years of tradition, abandoned sacred cows, gave tieflings butts for heads, etc.
Sure sounds like edition hate to me.
Stay classy, Paizo fans.
|
|
Prematurely released a shoddy edition that immediately has errata. Demonstrates lack of coherency and respect for 30+ years of tradition, abandoned sacred cows, gave tieflings butts for heads, etc.Sure sounds like edition hate to me.
Stay classy, Paizo fans.
I'll mention names here (so the innocence are unlikely to be protected)...
Scott we know on the boards that Pax is shall we say "pro-3e" (and earlier), as we know that you are "4e can do no wrong".
Not saying predictable but...
:)
S.
|
|
Scott we know on the boards that Pax is shall we say "pro-3e" (and earlier), as we know that you are "4e can do no wrong".
Yeah, Pax is more "pro-retro" than anything else, but man, aren't you right here: we know where this is going, folks, because we all know each other.
There's no surprise here, is there?But... what am I saying! We ALSO know Scott can't help but flame threads he perceives as flames versus "the edition which can do no wrong", therefore making pretty much all the pseudo-conversations he participates in ten times worse than they otherwise would have been. I also suspect he takes an immense pleasure in doing this, since he keeps doing it over, and over, and yet over again, year after year after year.
Yup. Definitely no surprise here.
|
|
Let's stop and think from WotC's point of view. With the very generous OGL in 3e they lost control of their product in a way. How many 3PP had "requires 3e PHB" to play? Lots. Now WotC sells a PHB and some other company pockets cash for several books. Currently I'm staring at Stargate RPG and in fact the requirement for the PHB is almost sort of optional if you know the d20 system already. While amazingly kind of WotC to do such a thing at some stage it becomes a community service rather than a profit maker. Think as we may that WotC are ALL about profit (those greedy Hasbro lackeys) - but even our beloved Paizo may have to think twice if they faced losses and I'll even go out on a limb and say that Lisa would like to eat and perhaps buy that 4th Ferrari.
All WotC has done is create a system SO different that all bets are off when it comes to IP so they could reinvent the OGL in such a way that tighter control is maintained.
The development of Pathfinder RPG is the evolution of perhaps the most sound RPG system yet created. The potential is huge and I believe it takes a smaller company (i.e. Paizo) to realize such potential. In a way I am thankful that WotC has left the d20 system (3e speaking) behind, large companies are more prone to making "mistakes" as they can financially absorb them, smaller companies need to get things right first time.
Roll on August!
S.
Stefan, this was pretty insightful. The company took measures to make sure the profits from its game stayed with it. That's smart business, if not exactly palatable to a community like ours.
I'm also glad it gave Paizo a chance to run with their own thing. I've thought they were a company that produced the best quality rpg stuff for years. Now they have their own game with which to build it from as well. Nothing but gravy for people like me who prefer their style of game.
I personally wouldn't want Wizards to go under, as the company who owns them has a huge potential to push marketing and really keep roleplay games in a market flooded with alternate entertainment. Once people become aware of this thing called D&D, it's not that big a step for them to explore other options on the market.
While it's dissapointing that the changes they brought about were so profound it created a rift in the community, it's not the first time this happened. I only got on board D&D for 3rd edition (having played the original warhammer roleplay and Earthdawn before that). I remember buying the core 3.0 books at my local hobby shop and having a group of AD&D fans complaining at me about how crappy all the changes were. Yet I loved it.
I picked up the first three books of 4th edition. It reminds me alot of some of teh table top games I played. The tactical aspect of thigns was great, the combats more though provoking for all my players, yet it lacks something for my group and I. We feel a bit less freeform when playing 4th edition than we did with 3.x. I'm sure there's a whole slew of reasons why, but in the end we just didn't enjoy it enough to run with it. Thank the gods a company like Paizo could still prvide support for the style of game my group and I do like.
Cheers=
This thread seems to be showing signs of moving away from friendly discussion, so maybe people need to remind themselves of where in the forums this thread is posted?
Crap not, that your threads be not crapped upon.
Scott we know on the boards that Pax is shall we say "pro-3e" (and earlier), as we know that you are "4e can do no wrong".Yeah, Pax is more "pro-retro" than anything else, but man, aren't you right here: we know where this is going, folks, because we all know each other.
There's no surprise here, is there?But... what am I saying! We ALSO know Scott can't help but flame threads he perceives as flames versus "the edition which can do no wrong", therefore making pretty much all the pseudo-conversations he participates in ten times worse than they otherwise would have been. I also suspect he takes an immense pleasure in doing this, since he keeps doing it over, and over, and yet over again, year after year after year.
Yup. Definitely no surprise here.
Yikes, nevermind. I can't even point out someone trying to fan the flames of edition wars without getting flamed into the ground.
Later, fellas.
|
|
This does not have to degenerate into an "edition war" (and is absolutely not an "edition" issue for me at least).
Pax did not mention anything specifically about 4E versus 3.X in his post. Personal or otherwise.
Really? The line:
Prematurely released a shoddy edition that immediately has errata. Demonstrates lack of coherency and respect for 30+ years of tradition, abandoned sacred cows, gave tieflings butts for heads, etc.Sure sounds like edition hate to me.
Or it could be seen as stating what some people see as facts after all they did release errata for skill challenges only a short while after it was released. It is an exception based system so it is not coherent throughout (ie monsters operate differently from pc's and even monsters of the same type can have a power with the same name but have vastly different affects Cyclops evil eye being an example). They did drop fluff and mechanics that had been in the game since 1st edition. As for tieflings they do look rather different in this edition than in previous ones(Admittedly I wouldn't say they all have butts for heads) Again none of the above is hating since all the above did happen.
|
|
Yikes, nevermind. I can't even point out someone trying to fan the flames of edition wars without getting flamed into the ground.Later, fellas.
I'm going to have to defend Scott here. What Pax and Scott have to say if you blank out the "rabid pro-<insert game here>" is usually very interesting and astute. I was just pointing out that we "know them", not that it was a bad thing. Sorry if it came across as that.
Pax / Scott keep up the good work guys. Be the pillar stones of the game of your choice. It's refreshing after having to listen to wishy-washy people such as myself.
I'm so neutral I could be a Druid! Is that a good thing?
Cheers,
S.
When did it become not okay to "hate" what "happened"? Sheesh.
To the 4e players who, while disagreeing with those of us who feel differently than they allowed us to think and feel the way we do and still have a decent conversation, I want to say a big thank you. I am sure that I am not the only one who appreciates and respects you for that.
Stefan, a Druid from Switzerland perhaps?
At this point I am simply going to agree with a whole with what Pres Man said. WotC, thanks for the OGL and thusly, everything that can be published beneath is aegis.
I don't necessarily blame WotC for the way things turned out...but I certainly think that they (or Hasbronian Overlords) made some really funky and poor decisions with how to handle the marketing of 4E to the community.
But hey, I'm with Paizo and Pathfinder for the long haul. I've tried some rather extensive 4E tests and found that its not to my liking, nor is it fixed in any meaningful way over 3.5. Just like always when a new edition comes out, there is errata (come on, no one should be surprised by this!) and bugs. What I am getting at is this, 4E is different from previous editions. IMO, 4E was a recreation of D&D for a broader audience. While I personally think this was a bad idea, that doesn't mean it was a bad idea for Hasbro/WotC. Then again, I really don't have sales numbers and any statements about reprintings and such are just heresay anyhow, at least without knowing the size of the printings by volume in the first place.
Note that is not an attack against anyone wanting to defend 4E, nor am I attacking that edition...its just that none of us, unless we work in Sales and Marketing for WotC/Hasbro will have all the facts and sales figures.
Otherwise though, I am happy with what I have, happy with Paizo and best of luck to WotC/Hasbro.
|
|
At least after they scrapped the game I played I have something to look forward to! ;)
Too true, who knows perhaps if WotC had continued tweaking 3e they would have been accused of flogging a dead horse and where was the "new"?
What has happened in my opinion has been great for D&D in general. Discussion boards lighting up left and right, in conflict D&D has been pushed to the front of our minds. Is there are winner - yes. It's the D&D community. In this upheaval we now have 1e coming back, 3e been revamped, and 4e [I will throw in True20 here also - see another post I'll make soon as to why]. Whatever flavour D&D takes your fancy it now exists.
Great times we live in.
S.
Again none of the above is hating since all the above did happen.
Cool. Next time I am pointing out how flawed Class based systems, armor that does not absorb damage and Vancian spell casting are, I know I am not hating.
Of course not. Bein' a doofus isn't hating. (Pats CF on his fuzzy wittuw head.)
Of course not. Bein' a doofus isn't hating. (Pats CF on his fuzzy wittuw head.)
Flag! FLAG! FLAG!!!
Sure!
Get the flag, boy! Get the flag, boy!
Throws flag over into CharOp thread.
Throws flag over into CharOp thread.
Is that where I should be posting my Hero builds?
As long as they are optimized, I take it.
|
|
Should we not speak about these casual observations nor their impact to the gaming community?
Edit: Removed tanking Scot for being 'above the fray' because GW wanted me to snark on him. It is not my goal to snark on anyone. Peterson admitting that wotc have made things difficult to work with is certainly news, and very telling.
How come I didn't get a snarky response, but Scott did?
Jealousy aside, today is the last day of my vacation. A return to work should fill up my time enough that I don't fall to the compulsion to post in threads like these.
|
|
How come I didn't get a snarky response, but Scott did?
Jealousy aside, today is the last day of my vacation. A return to work should fill up my time enough that I don't fall to the compulsion to post in threads like these.
Now I feel bad.
Ok, you suck, your game sucks, and assuming you own a cat, well you guessed it, your cat also sucks.
I'll make sure you are not forgotten again.
Grandest apologies,
Grand Druid S.
PS: I actually think it would be good for 4e and 3e people to start discussing things - other than who's game is best. But if people in the 3e board want to slag off 4e then so what, conversely if 4e people want to slag off 3e in their section. Seems to be the correct places for such things after all...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
How come I didn't get a snarky response, but Scott did?
Jealousy aside, today is the last day of my vacation. A return to work should fill up my time enough that I don't fall to the compulsion to post in threads like these.
Have you even said that people who don't like 4th edition shouldn't post anywhere? Then you're fine.
I've said previously, empirical data says 4.x isn't doing as well as 3.x did, but there are a number of factors in that. 4.x isn't for me, both for mechanics, (surges, per day, missing skills) and fluff (4gotten Realms, and now the changes in dragonmarks for Eberron)
Edit: I'm disappointed that the GSL hijinks may not only have cost both the 3.x and 4.x a stream of Necromancer print material, it also may mean the ToH: Pathfinder is stuck as PDF :-(