Now this is a golden example of responsiveness:
1) Clark suggested that the time span between when 4e was released and 3PPs for it were were released, reduced the desire for distributors and sellers to purchase 3PP stuff. Assuming that is true, with respect to PFRPG, has Paizo been giving out the core rules to 3P so that there is not the same span of time between the release of the core rules and 3PP?And then this:
Yes. We have been sending out preview copies of the core rules for many weeks now. There should be a number of 3PP's having products ready for the release of the game in August.
-Lisa
Time between initial post and response: 1 hour, 6 minutes.
This is how a company builds customer loyalty, instead of just customer preference from a good product.
Acutally, it doesn't even need to be that fast. The next day would have been fine. :D
Acutally, it doesn't even need to be that fast. The next day would have been fine. :DTime between initial post and response: 1 hour, 6 minutes.
This is how a company builds customer loyalty, instead of just customer preference from a good product.
That's why I called it a "golden example."
|
1) Clark suggested that the time span between when 4e was released and 3PPs for it were were released, reduced the desire for distributors and sellers to purchase 3PP stuff. Assuming that is true, with respect to PFRPG, has Paizo been giving out the core rules to 3P so that there is not the same span of time between the release of the core rules and 3PP?
And then this:
Yes. We have been sending out preview copies of the core rules for many weeks now. There should be a number of 3PP's having products ready for the release of the game in August.
-Lisa
Not to mention, the indie RPG industry is a very incestuous one (in the good sense!).
A lot of those 3PP are freelancing for Paizo, or have writers/artists who are doing so. They'll already have an idea what's in those rules, even if they haven't officially been given a copy, no?
1) Clark suggested that the time span between when 4e was released and 3PPs for it were were released, reduced the desire for distributors and sellers to purchase 3PP stuff. Assuming that is true, with respect to PFRPG, has Paizo been giving out the core rules to 3P so that there is not the same span of time between the release of the core rules and 3PP?And then this:
Yes. We have been sending out preview copies of the core rules for many weeks now. There should be a number of 3PP's having products ready for the release of the game in August.
-Lisa
Not to mention, the indie RPG industry is a very incestuous one (in the good sense!).
A lot of those 3PP are freelancing for Paizo, or have writers/artists who are doing so. They'll already have an idea what's in those rules, even if they haven't officially been given a copy, no?
I wish I had thought to ask something else as part of that question. How many of these 3PP are actual print product producers as compared to pdf producers? pdfs are fine, but the issue was about getting physical product on the shelves. No doubt there are some, so I guess in the end the number doesn't really matter, unless the print ones are all small and obscure. Just something I thought of later, doesn't really need answering.
How long do you think it will be before Paizo can make a bid to buy the rights to Dungeons and Dragons away from WOTC and restore D&D's good name?
Maybe we can start a war chest to help out? :)
I have been thinking about that sense day one of Pathfinder.
If 4E plays like a high-speed video game, I'd hate to see what a slow speed video game plays like. This is not necessarily an attack on 4e but a personal observation. For example, I know of a Living Forgotten Realms session played this weekend that took from 1PM on Saturday to 4:30 AM on Sunday to complete, primarily due to the horrifically long combats. It was twice as long as the usual LFR modules, but this is still utterly ridiculous. From my own personal experience and that of others, this is typical of 4E. Wasn't one of the chief goals of 4E to speed up gameplay? Then when they discovered that that wasn't the case, they backpedaled and said "But the rounds are faster." which still isn't exactly true all of the time. When the rounds do go faster than 3.5, you still have about 2-3 times more rounds than in 3.5, so I don't see a real improvement.
I have friends who love it, because it plays more like a high-speed video game than does 3.5. Of course, they still play fast and...
Heh, I know what you mean.
I've not posted here for a while, but I was fervantly anti-4e after the release and contributed to the general moaning about it some. I have been playing other games (than D&D) for the last 6 months, so haven't given the state of D&D much thought since.
However, I was on business in a city away from home for the last couple of weeks and came across a games shop which held games night on monday nights, and so with little else to do save watch porn in my hotel room I wandered in last monday and bellied up to a table for a game.
I was welcomed into a 4e game, and so I hesitated and layed my doubts about the system (from reading it) on the table, to which the group shrugged and said to give it a try. So I did. Now, I can't honestly claim I had an entirely open mind because I had my doubts as I say about the system, but I did wish to have a fun night at the gaming table and went in with a pretty easy going attitude.
And I did have a good time. The guys were okay guys, the GM was an okay GM, the adventure was passably good plot and setting wise, and I was rolling like it was 1984 (I don't think I rolled under 17 all night!). So it was fun.
However ... the evenings play only confirmed my doubts about the 4e system, indeed actually playing it highlighted problems I hadn't even been aware of from just reading it.
I could go into a long list of stuff, which would be rather pointless. So I won't bother doing that, but I will just say having played it I am only more convinced 4e plays like a significantly different game to earlier editions and not in a good way. Imo it's much more about the party, rather than individual PCs, and the heavy emphasis on tabletop/miniatures combat (even during a session where the GM was stressing he wanted the game to be about role playing rather than just combat) has changed the dynamic of the whole game. I liked my Dwarven fighter, but at the day having him swiftly created on the pc (using that system on DDI) made him feel less real to me than the old school rolling up. Other issues in play (especially in the very long combats) made it feel like I was more restricted in what I could do than in the old days.
All in all, I primarily disagree with the simplistic feel of the whole thing. It's like the detail has been washed away, leaving a skeletal stripped down shell.
So, again I had fun, but despite the system in no way because of it. Is 4e selling or not? Who cares, all I can say on that point is; not to me. And that's the last I'll bother saying about 4e.
I liked my Dwarven fighter, but at the [end of the] day having him swiftly created on the pc (using that system on DDI) made him feel less real to me than the old school rolling up.
I don't quite understand that. I mean, I can understand not being really invested in a character that you created in a few minutes without spending time thinking about it. But the speed at which the character is actually generated (vs. the speed of developing the idea for it) shouldn't take away the feel of the character. Otherwise, experienced players who know the ins and outs of a system and punch out a character in a few moments would be less interested in their characters than brand new players that have no idea how the system works and just spend hours trying to determine what their hit points are.
|
I am only more convinced 4e plays like a significantly different game to earlier editions and not in a good way. Imo it's much more about the party, rather than individual PCs, and the heavy emphasis on tabletop/miniatures combat (even during a session where the GM was stressing he wanted the game to be about role playing rather than just combat) has changed the dynamic of the whole game. I liked my Dwarven fighter, but at the day having him swiftly created on the pc (using that system on DDI) made him feel less real to me than the old school rolling up. Other issues in play (especially in the very long combats) made it feel like I was more restricted in what I could do than in the old days.
All in all, I primarily disagree with the simplistic feel of the whole thing. It's like the detail has been washed away, leaving a skeletal stripped down shell.
Its been a while since I've heard from you Rockheimr. Good to hear from you. Thanks for the open minded evaluation.
There are two myths in my opinion that amount to marketing spin-doctors trying to stay on-message:
>I believe it is a myth/propaganda that 4e is somehow more like the original first edition game as nothing I have heard could be farther from the truth.
>I believe it is a myth/propaganda that somehow the community must never let WIZARDS tank, because to do so would be to destroy the whole hobby. Oh, I beg your pardon? What a convenient way to govern with fear, "you're either for us or you're against us." No matter what, the hobby survives, and as Monte recently alluded to in one of his podcasts, the near future may see a fantasy gaming community made of many small companies or gamers creating games for gamers, rather than a mega company monopolizing the industry.
On the first point I make - I'm glad to have heard directly from you just how washed out it is from first hand experience.
I tank WOTC for showing me just how rich the game has always been by contrast.
I also tank Wizards for helping me identify those smaller third-party publishers that make great materials like PAIZO and Peterson, Chenault and Cook. I can't even convey to this community just how far behind the dark veil I was as a fan of WOTC, until they broke away from me, from the game, from segments of the gaming community.
I liked my Dwarven fighter, but at the [end of the] day having him swiftly created on the pc (using that system on DDI) made him feel less real to me than the old school rolling up.I don't quite understand that. I mean, I can understand not being really invested in a character that you created in a few minutes without spending time thinking about it. But the speed at which the character is actually generated (vs. the speed of developing the idea for it) shouldn't take away the feel of the character. Otherwise, experienced players who know the ins and outs of a system and punch out a character in a few moments would be less interested in their characters than brand new players that have no idea how the system works and just spend hours trying to determine what their hit points are.
I probably didn't word what I meant very well, what I meant was that the online character gen (while being usefully rapid - bearing in mind I arrived without a character) 'felt' like my choices were limited. After the attribute point allocation, there were, I dunno, half a dozen choices re powers etc, then I bought armour, weapon and a generic adventurer's gear pack, and bing bang bosh I was ready to go. It just ... felt rather dry. I did put some effort into quickly crafting a background and character for Garwyn the Grouser, but still, maybe it's just a feeling rather than a fact, but it did feel rather cookie cutter, if you know what I mean?
Either way, that was a small point compared to my main problems with the system, which were all about the gameplay.
I am only more convinced 4e plays like a significantly different game to earlier editions and not in a good way. Imo it's much more about the party, rather than individual PCs, and the heavy emphasis on tabletop/miniatures combat (even during a session where the GM was stressing he wanted the game to be about role playing rather than just combat) has changed the dynamic of the whole game. I liked my Dwarven fighter, but at the day having him swiftly created on the pc (using that system on DDI) made him feel less real to me than the old school rolling up. Other issues in play (especially in the very long combats) made it feel like I was more restricted in what I could do than in the old days.
All in all, I primarily disagree with the simplistic feel of the whole thing. It's like the detail has been washed away, leaving a skeletal stripped down shell.
Its been a while since I've heard from you Rockheimr. Good to hear from you. Thanks for the open minded evaluation.
There are two myths in my opinion that amount to marketing spin-doctors trying to stay on-message:
>I believe it is a myth/propaganda that 4e is somehow more like the original first edition game as nothing I have heard could be farther from the truth.
>I believe it is a myth/propaganda that somehow the community must never let WIZARDS tank, because to do so would be to destroy the whole hobby. Oh, I beg your pardon? What a convenient way to govern with fear, "you're either for us or you're against us." No matter what, the hobby survives, and as Monte recently alluded to in one of his podcasts, the near future may see a fantasy gaming community made of many small companies or gamers creating games for gamers, rather than a mega company monopolizing the industry.On the first point I make - I'm glad to have heard directly from you just how washed out it is from first hand experience.
-snip-
Just my opinion, and my axe is pretty much ground down on this issue now, but in total honesty rather than feeling like 1e AD&D, or WoW come to that, 4e to me felt like playing a simplified cross between the old original version of Warhammer Fantasy Battle and Basic D&D.
Classes and character gen kinda felt like Basic. Gameplay like WFB with a couple of very brief nods to roleplaying (whatever it might say in the depths of the 4e PHB or DMG). As one of the guys I was playing with said; '4e rules, whatever you might think of them, don't encourage roleplaying'. You can roleplay with them, but even in that one session I found myself butting up against rules restrictions and strange rules that seemed to make little to no sense in-game.
Also being a GM (and occasional player) who never used miniatures in two decades of play, 4e's insistence on minis (which is blatantly based around monetary reasons rather than any good in-game issue) is a massive problem for me. Even as a player I found myself distanced by the tabletop aspects from the immersive experience I usually get from roleplaying. When some bad guys burst into a tavern I wasn't really imagining them, I was looking at minis on a tabletop map and assuming they resembled the minis. Also tabletop maps don't really give a great impression of what a room looks like to those in it, it's just a floorplan.
Again it is worth stressing, I did have a fun night. So I can see why (if you had no other options) you might want to play 4e. But it's certainly not for me.
EDIT- I guess it could be a good entry level system, that draws in new players who can graduate to better games after a while. But imo the prime D&D system on the market should be more than just an easy to learn entry level system.
Anyway I'm about to get back into GMing my old D&D campaign using our slightly home-tweaked Runequest Basic Rules system, having finally worked out an elegantly simple (if I do say myself) crossover of the old (1e, 2e, 3e) spells.
If 4E plays like a high-speed video game, I'd hate to see what a slow speed video game plays like. This is not necessarily an attack on 4e but a personal observation. For example, I know of a Living Forgotten Realms session played this weekend that took from 1PM on Saturday to 4:30 AM on Sunday to complete, primarily due to the horrifically long combats. It was twice as long as the usual LFR modules, but this is still utterly ridiculous. From my own personal experience and that of others, this is typical of 4E. Wasn't one of the chief goals of 4E to speed up gameplay? Then when they discovered that that wasn't the case, they backpedaled and said "But the rounds are faster." which still isn't exactly true all of the time. When the rounds do go faster than 3.5, you still have about 2-3 times more rounds than in 3.5, so I don't see a real improvement.
I have friends who love it, because it plays more like a high-speed video game than does 3.5. Of course, they still play fast and...
Heh, I know what you mean.
I've not posted here for a while, but I was fervantly anti-4e after the release and contributed to the general moaning about it some. I have been playing other games (than D&D) for the last 6 months, so haven't given the state of D&D much thought since.
However, I was on business in a city away from home for the last couple of weeks and came across a games shop which held games night on monday nights, and so with little else to do save watch porn in my hotel room I wandered in last monday and bellied up to a table for a game.
I was welcomed into a 4e game, and so I hesitated and layed my doubts about the system (from reading it) on the table, to which the group shrugged and said to give it a try. So I did. Now, I can't honestly claim I had an entirely open mind because I had my doubts as I say about the system, but I did wish to have a fun night at the gaming table and went in with a pretty easy going attitude.
And I did have a good time....
If people want to play a fast paced video game on a board then get Frag Gold edition.
|
There are two myths in my opinion that amount to marketing spin-doctors trying to stay on-message:
>I believe it is a myth/propaganda that 4e is somehow more like the original first edition game as nothing I have heard could be farther from the truth.
>I believe it is a myth/propaganda that somehow the community must never let WIZARDS tank, because to do so would be to destroy the whole hobby. Oh, I beg your pardon? What a convenient way to govern with fear, "you're either for us or you're against us." No matter what, the hobby survives, and as Monte recently alluded to in one of his podcasts, the near future may see a fantasy gaming community made of many small companies or gamers creating games for gamers, rather than a mega company monopolizing the industry.
QFT
There is also myth #3. You have to play the game to see if you like it, otherwise you are ignorant. I don't call it ignorance, I call it discernment. An intelligent gamer can read a set of rules and tell whether he or she likes a game. There are many RPG's and boardgames I have passed on after reading the rules, others I have bought. Some were my style, others were not. I have passed on many 3PP modules and supplements for 3E after looking them over, many others I have bought.
Myth #3 leads to Myth #4. You can't just play one game and know whether you like it or not, you have to play for at least a year.
Which leads to Myth #5. You can't just play to level 10 and know whether you like it or not, you have to play to level 20.
Which leads to Myth #6. You can't just play to level 20 and know whether you like it or not, you have to get into epic levels.
Which leads to Myth #7. You can't just play into epic with one class and know whether you like it or not, you have to play another class.
And on, and on, and on...
I looked over PFRPG Beta and knew that I would like it. Is that ignorance...?
I looked over PFRPG Beta and knew that I would like it. Is that ignorance...?
What is quite funny is that we are starting to see your Myths 3-... coming supporters of the PFRPG to people that are not interested. As they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
|
|
I looked over PFRPG Beta and knew that I would like it. Is that ignorance...?What is quite funny is that we are starting to see your Myths 3-... coming supporters of the PFRPG to people that are not interested. As they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for an intelligent gamer who loves either 3.5 or 4E (or any other version of any other RPG) to look over PFRPG and say, "this is not for me."
I heard Myth#3 repeatedly in my stake of not wanting to play 4e. I even told the GM "look, I have the books. I can read. I've seen what your game offers and I'm not interested.", and I was proceeded to be made fun of and called ignorant for it.
In the course of my life, I've seen a few hundred games, tabletop and video, that all I had to do was look at it and go "Hmm, not for me." and no one would say 2 words about it. All of a sudden, when the new and shiny came out, I was called ignorant. Hmm. I've flipped through tons of other RPG books and figured out quickly they weren't my style. Why do people have such a hard time accepting that is just the case? Maybe recruiting numbers are down...
|
|
I'm not at Wizards, I'm mad at Hasbro....well I was, now I'm ambivalent.
Publicly traded companies require constant growth...expect less for more as time goes on.
The first misstep to me occurred at GenCon 07? When they stated that no new edition was in the works and it wouldn't be until at least 09 (correct me if I'm wrong). Then they started putting out crappy books, because they were testing systems for 4e and just rushing items out the door.
No play-testing by players, it was all internally tested...
Them slamming 3.5 and saying 4e was far superior but still D&D...
Being belligerent to the Grognards, and actually calling us Grognards in a very derogatory tone.
They want new markets, they want the MMORPG market..good luck, most MMORPG players like MMORPGS because it's different.
I like MMORPGS, but I wanted my DDO to be MORE like 3.5 not my 3.5 to be More like DDO...that's why I don't play it now...
These are merely My Opinions based upon my experience...I'm not flaming any specific person, merely venting my personal feelings.
Wotci, tank you for the flaming dragon poo.
I've harnessed its magical properties and now have a nice cottage industry on the side. From the bottom of my heart: TANK YOU.
|
|
Wotci, tank you for the flaming dragon poo.
I've harnessed its magical properties and now have a nice cottage industry on the side. From the bottom of my heart: TANK YOU.
Yeah, that, and the kobold minions. Now that I have a substantial cult of them around my place, life is so much easier. They are even starting to bring treasure and princesses to my lair.
What more can you ask out of life ?
|
|
No play-testing by players, it was all internally tested...Them slamming 3.5 and saying 4e was far superior but still D&D...
This is why I am so happy with Paizo. Large and long playtest. Backward compatable AP's for those who do not want to switch.
Being belligerent to the Grognards, and actually calling us Grognards in a very derogatory tone.
True.
Wotci, tank you for the flaming dragon poo.
I've harnessed its magical properties and now have a nice cottage industry on the side. From the bottom of my heart: TANK YOU.
Yeah, that, and the kobold minions. Now that I have a substantial cult of them around my place, life is so much easier. They are even starting to bring treasure and princesses to my lair.
What more can you ask out of life ?
To crush your enemies.
See them driven before you.And to hear the lamentations of their women.
Wotci, tank you for the flaming dragon poo.
I've harnessed its magical properties and now have a nice cottage industry on the side. From the bottom of my heart: TANK YOU.
Yeah, that, and the kobold minions. Now that I have a substantial cult of them around my place, life is so much easier. They are even starting to bring treasure and princesses to my lair.
What more can you ask out of life ?
To crush your enemies.
See them driven before you.
And to hear the lamentations of their women.
Game Master, what is best in life?
To crush their characters, to see their sheets pile before you, and to hear the lamentations of the players.
Wasn't it "da wimin"?
Heh, heh. Cruel, Lillith.
Hey, Dark Minstrel. I don't think I ever welcomed you. So: WELCOME!
Somebody call for weight?
Nine minutes to create a post specific alias? Damn, you used to do it in five! Drop and give me 20, maggot!!!!
Sorry, Sir! Was making revision of chapter three, Sir!
one...two...three...four...
|
|
No play-testing by players, it was all internally tested...
Them slamming 3.5 and saying 4e was far superior but still D&D...
Being belligerent to the Grognards, and actually calling us Grognards in a very derogatory tone.
What a low road they have taken... and I hadn't even realized the entire kabob was in house, and not tested externally. Really? What were they afraid of?
Perhaps that's why the errata arrived immediately following release, but not sooner so it could be fixed.?
What a low road they have taken... and I hadn't even realized the entire kabob was in house, and not tested externally. Really? What were they afraid of?
Perhaps that's why the errata arrived immediately following release, but not sooner so it could be fixed.?
Actually, it wasn't only internally tested. I think it seems that way because of the non-disclosure agreement. I do remember one of Paizo's faithful, Nick Logue, coming out of the 4E playtester closet when they announced it. I can only assume that other freelancers were involved in the playtest but didn't come out.
I found the experience of reading 4E quite different from the experience of playing 4E. Would everyone? I have no idea.
As has been pointed out, 4E was definitely playtested externally. WotC has made plenty of mistakes worth getting upset about; why make up new ones?
True, dat.
There's plenty to give TANKS for.
|
|
From what I understand, most of the playtesting was internal, with some freelancers playesting with NDA's to keep them quiet. Regardless, of how they did it, they should have done a better job, because the amount of errata is staggering. I don't think it's be worth buying a PHB unless it is from a later print run with all of the errata updates in it. Of course, I doubt that WotC will fork out the cash to do that.
From what I understand, most of the playtesting was internal, with some freelancers playesting with NDA's to keep them quiet. Regardless, of how they did it, they should have done a better job, because the amount of errata is staggering. I don't think it's be worth buying a PHB unless it is from a later print run with all of the errata updates in it. Of course, I doubt that WotC will fork out the cash to do that.
Yes there is a fair chunk of it, but it seems to me that most of the errata for the PHB is either clarifying things where the original wording could lead to potential exploits, or fixing things that should have been picked up in editing. Admittedly, I've only scanned through the PHB errata on the occasions I've referenced it to answer questions that have come up in the game I'm running, but I've yet to see anything in there that makes me think the playtesting could have been better.
IMO, there is a stronger case that issues with the writing and editing processes are responsible for most of the errata, but either way, my 4E group has no issues with using the PHB sans errata during our sessions.
One of my players did buy the (more expensive) deluxe edition which had at least some of the errata updates in it, so hopefully it wouldn't take too much extra effort or expense for WotC to include those same updates in future printings of the PHB.
I guess you can forget what you didn't bother knowing in the first place.
"Oh look, someone has drop a turd in our thread..."
This thread wasn't exactly a rose garden to begin with.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
This thread wasn't exactly a rose garden to begin with.I guess you can forget what you didn't bother knowing in the first place.
"Oh look, someone has drop a turd in our thread..."
I'm sure the participants in this thread think the same of the 4e threads. Let's show some respect and ignore this thread rather than pick a fight.
I'm sure the participants in this thread think the same of the 4e threads. Let's show some respect and ignore this thread rather than pick a fight.
I have yet to see a 4e thread that outlines the reasons why it wishes a rival roleplaying game publisher would tank, but fair enough. Ignoring this thread is probably the right thing to do.
Hey! More fertilizer for my rose garden.
And Sebastian, I gave you a perfectly good pitch earlier. Where's the love?
|
Ignoring this thread is probably the right thing to do.
I don't think you have to ignore the thread if you have an opposing opinion of its subject matter...
I mean it is possible for one to voice that opinion in a way that is neither snide nor rude...
Your "Rose garden" comment, while snarky, wasn't IMO particularly rude...
I don’t know, I guess that is what open debate is all about… :-)
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Howdy, Xaaon. (By the way, how do I pronounce "Xaaon"? Like "ZAY-onn?")
These are merely My Opinions based upon my experience...I'm not flaming any specific person, merely venting my personal feelings.
Speaking for myself, I think the 4th Edition DMG is one of the best books on game-mastering technique I've read in years, and there are some mechanics in 4th Edition I like enough to 'port back into my 3.5 campaigns. However, I'd not choose the 4E system to role-play if given a choice, and I firmly believe that Wizards could have profitted by hiring one more developer, hiring at least one additional editor, and spending two more weeks to turn over product to their printers. (Bad development lasts forever.)
So, I'm mostly in agreement with your position.
But you're making statements of fact, and then casting them as opinions, which are different things.
I'm not [upset] at Wizards, I'm mad at Hasbro....well I was, now I'm ambivalent.
Publicly traded companies require constant growth...expect less for more as time goes on.
The first misstep to me occurred at GenCon 07? When they stated that no new edition was in the works and it wouldn't be until at least 09 (correct me if I'm wrong). Then they started putting out crappy books, because they were testing systems for 4e and just rushing items out the door.
There's a lot in that claim to unbundle.
- They stated no new edition as in the works. That ship sailed a long time ago. Wizards' publicity hacks were carefully parsing out statements with loopholes that allowed for internal development of a new edition.
- They put out crappy books. That is indeed an opinion, and one I don't necessarily share. To my perspective, the worst 3.5 books came out in the middle of the run, including material like the Races books and a lot of odd Realms stuff. The Magic Item Compendium, Rules Compendium, Dragon Magic, and even the controversial Book of Nine Swords were quite late in development --certainly, 4th Edition was already in progress-- and I'd hold them up as excellent rulebooks.
- They were rushing items out the door. They had a ridiculous publishing schedule for the entire 3.5 run. In any case, that should detract from 3.5, not from 4th Edition.
No play-testing by players, it was all internally tested...
A factual claim, and untrue.
Them slamming 3.5 and saying 4e was far superior but still D&D...
Well, that's marketing for you. "New and improved" is a standard sales trope. When the 4th Edition advertisements started appearing, I thought they were badly off-target, but I didn't get upset over them.
Being belligerent to the Grognards, and actually calling us Grognards in a very derogatory tone.
You're taking offense at tone-of-voice over print and the internet. This is indeed an opinion, and you're welcome to it.
In the end, Wizards --the designers and developers-- are still counted among the good people, whether they've written a set of game rules I personally want to play or not.
--+--+--
From what I understand, most of the playtesting was internal, with some freelancers playesting with NDA's to keep them quiet. Regardless, of how they did it, they should have done a better job, because the amount of errata is staggering.
This is the first I've heard of that, and if it's true, that's a shame. 3.5's PHB and DMG had a fair amount of errata (Can Barbarians move quickly in Medium armor? How does Charging work, again?) and it's a miserable job to try to make sense of a primary rulebook during the heat of a gaming session when the text needs correcting.
--+--+--
Quick an Elephant never forgets, so lets continue making avatars and alternates so that people quickly forget why people post against what we say.you 3.5aphiles seem to have a terribly hard time keeping the truth from whatever you would like to actually paint 4th edition as.
An Elephant never forgets, well I guess you can forget what you didn't bother knowing in the first place.
Logos, you're my friend. But, man, I think I need a visit from the Comprehension Fairy to understand what you're saying here.
Translation: I didn't like some derailing humor and I want to get back to arguing. Let me poke the thread and see if I can get a response.
Hence, my elephant stayed in his barn.
PS I would have made a Comprehension Fairy alias, but I have to draw the line somewhere, Chris. ;)
Oh...the moment has probably past. It was after your "scorn" post. Where was that? The tennis shoe thread?
|
|
With the passing of Gygax it made me believe that "D&D" died when Gygax left TSR. So I don't have a basis to argue from unfortunately. Both Pathfinder & 4e are fantasy roleplaying games, as such they share common factors (elves etc). But neither are Gygax's game, I wish both Paizo and WotC success with their products. Both are fantasy RPGs I enjoy for different reasons. I will however say that I am glad of the break by Paizo with the v3.5 rules from WotC I think the designers at WotC had become v3.5 "stale" and were not producing good products near the end. 4e has given WotC a new product and Paizo a new product - win/win really.
So I have two excellent RPGs I can play and if I want "D&D" I have my trusty 1e AD&D PHB/DMG/MM & Greyhawk... :)
S.