Joseph Goodman on D&D 4th Edition


4th Edition

51 to 82 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Darkbridger wrote:
Quote:
I am failing to see the problem here, especially in light of Pathfinder RPG basically continuing the 3.5 ruleset so we aren't losing "v3.5".

Perhaps it's a minor point, but... was there any company that "took up the torch", as it were, for 1st or 2nd edition when those systems were replaced? I don't seem to recall any, but I won't claim my memory is perfect. Granted, there was no license back then to allow a 3PP to pickup where an old system left off, but I don't really remember any candidates. The creation of Paizo and the Pathfinder RPG is fairly unique. It's also probably due, in very large part, to Wizards themselves. Who would have thought back when the OGL was created, that they were setting the seeds of schism within their own system?

I think the GSL or lack therof was the cause of the schism. If Wizards had offered a 4e OGL, Paizo probably would not have created Pathfinder.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Raevhen wrote:


I think the GSL or lack therof was the cause of the schism. If Wizards had offered a 4e OGL, Paizo probably would not have created Pathfinder.

I'm not sure about that - paizo had already begun pathfinder when 4e was announced. They've said that it wasn't just the license that drove the decision, it was also the fit between the 4e system and the pathfinder setting. One of those two would've had to change.


Just read Goodmans opinion. Very interesting. I'd just like to state, that I'm a PFRPG fan, I just couldn't get into 4e, despite liking alot of its design goals and ideas, it didn't suit me, but I'm happy that many people do like it.

Which leads me neatly to the fact that I beleive that 4e is selling okay, not better, but at least well, sustainably so hopefully. Because the worry is that the peak has been passed, and while 4e might sell well, far better than PFRPG or other games, WotC has bigger overheads, I hope they can adapt and cut back enough to keep a profit margin, because the games market is in flux, probably slight decrease, so while smaller companies can sell only alright and be very comfortable, WotC has to be able to cut back to what will still probably be the industry leader in sales.

And hopefully 5th ed. has gnomes! :p


Sebastian wrote:
Raevhen wrote:


I think the GSL or lack therof was the cause of the schism. If Wizards had offered a 4e OGL, Paizo probably would not have created Pathfinder.
I'm not sure about that - Paizo had already begun pathfinder when 4e was announced. They've said that it wasn't just the license that drove the decision, it was also the fit between the 4e system and the pathfinder setting. One of those two would've had to change.

Yes, Paizo started Pathfinder when they had the magazines yanked, but if there was an OGL early, I really think they would have converted. I think I remember Eric even posting a message that they were wondering if they should covert the Pathfinder adventures to 4e or not. I really believe WoTC caused the schism with their selfish attitude towards the 3PP but the late and poorly crafted GSL.

Pathfinder will be a success for Paizo, but I really doubt it will sell on the order of 4e. If Paizo would have been given the opportunity to support 4e would they have sold as much product supporting 4e than Pathfinder RPG? Who knows.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Raevhen wrote:
Yes, Paizo started Pathfinder when they had the magazines yanked, but if there was an OGL early, I really think they would have converted. I think I remember Eric even posting a message that they were wondering if they should covert the Pathfinder adventures to 4e or not. I really believe WoTC caused the schism with their selfish attitude towards the 3PP but the late and poorly crafted GSL.

Sebastian is right—we announced the Pathfinder RPG on March 18, 2008; Wizards released the first version of the GSL on (I think) June 17. Wizards' delay in issuing the license was a factor in our decision, but the actual contents of the license were not part of the equation for us.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Okay, I definitely agree. WotC created this schism in the way they handled the magazines/license. It could've gone another way, and the fact that it didn't is something I lay entirely at the feet of WotC.

Dark Archive

As I said elsewhere, its evry interesting, and I dont doubt his credetials nor his logic.....but, there's his laying out his credentials, then it sorta just jumps to a conclusions. Supporting data is just not there. Would LOVE to see it, whether its amassed or a book he's written or whatever.

Dark Archive

Sebastrd wrote:
"Thurgon wrote:
Too much hand waving, "I am an expert", junk from Mr. Goodman to give him any more time then reading his one post.

Are you irritated that he listed his credentials, or do you simply believe his credentials don't qualify him to make observations about the topic?

He listed his credetials, his thesis, and conclusion, but no where in there was any actual data.....


carmachu wrote:
Sebastrd wrote:
"Thurgon wrote:
Too much hand waving, "I am an expert", junk from Mr. Goodman to give him any more time then reading his one post.

Are you irritated that he listed his credentials, or do you simply believe his credentials don't qualify him to make observations about the topic?

He listed his credetials, his thesis, and conclusion, but no where in there was any actual data.....

Agreed, but his opinion counts for something no matter what you think his agenda is. Obviously Goodman's bias lay in the fact that he is trying to produce a product. The argument that everyone elses ideas have as much weight are, IMO, wrong. What he says about knowing more is true - he has to. HOWEVER, the spin from that is something else entirely. Ultimately it doesn't matter.

Lastly, I'd ask everyone, why spend so much energy thinking about this stuff. We are all just part of a market - if there's enough of us buying, the product will continue. No amount of speculation will change it. You want to look at the data? Why? You can't change it except by supporting/not supporting said product. It truly amazes me that ppl would even bother debating sales btwn editions. I feel that there is still many of us 3.5 heads (myself not included) that begrudge their edition finishing and another group who support 4E (or both) that feel a need to justify/defend their interest in a new edition by pointing out it's validity using sales strength. This is just a big pi*&ing contest that continues to breed negativity between gamers.

I'm in support of anyone playing anything and having fun, regardless of economics I can't influence. The only data I care about is right there on my character sheet.


Tronos wrote:
Lastly, I'd ask everyone, why spend so much energy thinking about this stuff. We are all just part of a market - if there's enough of us buying, the product will continue. No amount of speculation will change it. You want to look at the data? Why? You can't change it except by supporting/not supporting said product. It truly amazes me that ppl would even bother debating sales btwn editions. I feel that there is still many of us 3.5 heads (myself not included) that begrudge their edition finishing and another group who support 4E (or both) that feel a need to justify/defend their interest in a new edition by pointing out it's validity using sales strength. This is just a big pi*&ing contest that continues to breed negativity between gamers.

I think part of the reason for this speculation is that people often seek external validation of their opinions or decisions, and sales figures are theoretically one way of determining if you made the "correct choice of edition". That is, if you decided to stick with 3.x and 4E sales are poor (and vice-versa for 4E supporters), then it likely means that the majority of a peer group you identify with (i.e. D&D gamers) has made the same choice and you feel as that your decision has, at least in part, been validated.

Unfortunately, as you have noted, this sort of thing does continue to breed more negativity between gamers. Focusing on the issues which divide us is counterproductive when, IMO, our energy and creativity is probably better spent on what we have in common, a love of gaming (and in particular Paizo's great products </shameless suck up>).


Vic Wertz wrote:
Sebastian is right—

Don't feed the pony.

You are going to encourage him...


Vic Wertz wrote:


Sebastian is right—we announced the Pathfinder RPG on March 18, 2008; Wizards released the first version of the GSL on (I think) June 17. Wizards' delay in issuing the license was a factor in our decision, but the actual contents of the license were not part of the equation for us.

My contention is not that you didn't like the contents of the GSL, but the fact that it was issued way too late for a company with production momentum to wait for. Imagine if WoTC had give Paizo, Goodman, Mongoose, and Green Ronin a copy of a 4e OGL 6-8 months prior to the release of 4e and asked these premiere 3PP to have some product ready to support their game at launch. If this were to have happened, I believe Pathfinder RPG would not exist.

Paizo could not sit on their hands and wait for WoTC to come down from the mountain and give them a GSL on stone tablets, they needed to keep their revenue stream flowing and since there was a large portion of the gaming community skeptical of 4e, they had an audience ready and waiting for them WITHOUT WoTC.

Whoever it was a WoTC who decided to jerk the chains of the 3PP is majorly responsible for the splitting of the community. I realize there would still be a split, but I believe if several major 3PP were supporting 4e, we would not have the schism we have today.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Raevhen wrote:
My contention is not that you didn't like the contents of the GSL, but the fact that it was issued way too late for a company with production momentum to wait for.

Yes, that was absolutely a factor.

Raevhen wrote:
Imagine if WoTC had give Paizo, Goodman, Mongoose, and Green Ronin a copy of a 4e OGL 6-8 months prior to the release of 4e and asked these premiere 3PP to have some product ready to support their game at launch. If this were to have happened, I believe Pathfinder RPG would not exist.

I can't agree with that. Timing was one factor, but another major factor for us was that, based on the information Wizards was releasing at the time, it was becoming pretty clear to us that 4E was going to be a fairly radical departure from the game we were interested in supporting. I honestly believe that if we'd been given a full copy of the rules on Wizards' original schedule, along with a GSL that was functionally equivalent to the OGL, Paizo would still be exactly where we are.

Liberty's Edge

Vic Wertz wrote:


Raevhen wrote:
Imagine if WoTC had give Paizo, Goodman, Mongoose, and Green Ronin a copy of a 4e OGL 6-8 months prior to the release of 4e and asked these premiere 3PP to have some product ready to support their game at launch. If this were to have happened, I believe Pathfinder RPG would not exist.
I can't agree with that. Timing was one factor, but another major factor for us was that, based on the information Wizards was releasing at the time, it was becoming pretty clear to us that 4E was going to be a fairly radical departure from the game we were interested in supporting. I honestly believe that if we'd been given a full copy of the rules on Wizards' original schedule, along with a GSL that was functionally equivalent to the OGL, Paizo would still be exactly where we are.

Which makes perfect sense to me actually. After all if you look at just how MANY people have fallen behind Pathfinder's flag in the gaming community, then it only makes sense that a company itself might have liked to move forward the way Paizo has instead of moving with Wizards.

And seriously ... thanks for making the decision you've made. I wasn't even this excited when I first got my hands on 3rd edition. You're marketing schemes and classes countdown have been great and the world of Golarion itself manages to feel both new and refreshing but also familiar.

EDIT: ... wow, can I SOUND more like a kiss ass? Tch, ah well.

Dark Archive

Vic Wertz wrote:
Timing was one factor, but another major factor for us was that, based on the information Wizards was releasing at the time, it was becoming pretty clear to us that 4E was going to be a fairly radical departure from the game we were interested in supporting. I honestly believe that if we'd been given a full copy of the rules on Wizards' original schedule, along with a GSL that was functionally equivalent to the OGL, Paizo would still be exactly where we are.

In a strange way that makes me feel better.

I didn't like the way the transition to 4th edtion was handled by WotC (intentionally or accidentally), but its nice to think it didn't unduly handicap Paizo in the long run.

Shadow Lodge

Now, as someone that enjoys both systems, some of the venom I see (from either side) is kind of off-putting...but I'll admit, quite readily, that I wasn't fond of the way they handled 4th edition's release either. Now, the method of Pathfinder's development might not have been right for them either (a massive open beta test does eat up a lot of time) but still...I'm sure there's a way things could have been handled differently.

Liberty's Edge

Ratchet wrote:
I suppose the fact we are in the largest financial crisis in recent history would have had an effect on sales.

AD&D was released during a much worse financial crisis than the one we're in now (and that is "recent history" for my 39 year old self), and it did fine, peaking a year before that recession was really over. Actually, it did better than anything D&D related since.

4e is selling well by modern RPG standards, but even 3x didn't sell nearly as well as AD&D 1E. D&D will never be a fad like it was in the early '80s, sorry to say, there's way too much competition for the geek dollar now.

But that's neither here nor there. 4e is doing fine, I'm sure, not nearly as well as the fans would have us believe, but not nearly as poorly as the detractors would have us believe either. But definitely still outselling any other RPGs out there right now. It has the name and marketing muscle, after all.


Miphon wrote:
Tronos wrote:
Lastly, I'd ask everyone, why spend so much energy thinking about this stuff. We are all just part of a market - if there's enough of us buying, the product will continue. No amount of speculation will change it. You want to look at the data? Why? You can't change it except by supporting/not supporting said product. It truly amazes me that ppl would even bother debating sales btwn editions. I feel that there is still many of us 3.5 heads (myself not included) that begrudge their edition finishing and another group who support 4E (or both) that feel a need to justify/defend their interest in a new edition by pointing out it's validity using sales strength. This is just a big pi*&ing contest that continues to breed negativity between gamers.

I think part of the reason for this speculation is that people often seek external validation of their opinions or decisions, and sales figures are theoretically one way of determining if you made the "correct choice of edition". That is, if you decided to stick with 3.x and 4E sales are poor (and vice-versa for 4E supporters), then it likely means that the majority of a peer group you identify with (i.e. D&D gamers) has made the same choice and you feel as that your decision has, at least in part, been validated.

Unfortunately, as you have noted, this sort of thing does continue to breed more negativity between gamers. Focusing on the issues which divide us is counterproductive when, IMO, our energy and creativity is probably better spent on what we have in common, a love of gaming (and in particular Paizo's great products </shameless suck up>).

I don't disagree with you on this, however I have noticed that the so called edition war issue never really happens with other systems. I'll admit that other game systems are too small for a major edition war to break out, but still you don't see the emotional level get so high with them. You don't see 1st edition Rifts players attacking 2nd editon Rifts players for example. But when it comes to DnD, jezz from day one and I've been playing for 20+ years, all I've heard was "I only play 1st ed. or 2ed. or ADD or ADD 2nd, or 3.0 or 3.5 only. Or no 3pp stuff or whatever" now its 4.0/pathfinder in the mix. I'm guilty of it too, but mainly I don't like Wizards the company, 4.0 itself is well meh. Nothing wrong with it, except maybe the healing surges, but also not my cup of tea, yet I've heard endless heated debates at my game store over which edition. Even White Wolf's new world of darkness was debated over much, most people kinda agree that the rules are better but the setting well is lacking. Yeah there is debate but not as heated. Just my 2 cents.

TTFN DRE


Andre Caceres wrote:


I don't disagree with you on this, however I have noticed that the so called edition war issue never really happens with other systems. I'll admit that other game systems are too small for a major edition war to break out, but still you don't see the emotional level get so high with them. You don't see 1st edition Rifts players attacking 2nd editon Rifts players for example. But when it comes to DnD, jezz from day one and I've been playing for 20+ years, all I've heard was "I only play 1st ed. or 2ed. or ADD or ADD 2nd, or 3.0 or 3.5 only. Or no 3pp stuff or whatever" now its 4.0/pathfinder in the mix. I'm guilty of it too, but mainly I don't like Wizards the company, 4.0 itself is well meh. Nothing wrong with it, except maybe the healing surges, but also not my cup of tea, yet I've heard endless heated debates at my game store over which edition. Even White Wolf's new world of darkness was debated over much, most people kinda agree that the rules are better but the setting well is lacking. Yeah there is debate but not as heated. Just my 2 cents.

I've seen some pretty heavy "debates" over oWoD and nWoD in some of the gaming chat-rooms. It had all the markings of an edition war with both sides saying "I will never touch oWoD" or "I will never touch the nWoD". Along with insults thrown at the players of such and the company for being money-grubbers and destroying oWoD.


Arcmagik wrote:
Andre Caceres wrote:


I don't disagree with you on this, however I have noticed that the so called edition war issue never really happens with other systems. I'll admit that other game systems are too small for a major edition war to break out, but still you don't see the emotional level get so high with them. You don't see 1st edition Rifts players attacking 2nd editon Rifts players for example. But when it comes to DnD, jezz from day one and I've been playing for 20+ years, all I've heard was "I only play 1st ed. or 2ed. or ADD or ADD 2nd, or 3.0 or 3.5 only. Or no 3pp stuff or whatever" now its 4.0/pathfinder in the mix. I'm guilty of it too, but mainly I don't like Wizards the company, 4.0 itself is well meh. Nothing wrong with it, except maybe the healing surges, but also not my cup of tea, yet I've heard endless heated debates at my game store over which edition. Even White Wolf's new world of darkness was debated over much, most people kinda agree that the rules are better but the setting well is lacking. Yeah there is debate but not as heated. Just my 2 cents.
I've seen some pretty heavy "debates" over oWoD and nWoD in some of the gaming chat-rooms. It had all the markings of an edition war with both sides saying "I will never touch oWoD" or "I will never touch the nWoD". Along with insults thrown at the players of such and the company for being money-grubbers and destroying oWoD.

Most likely we are only aware of those battles waged in the circles we swim in.

Liberty's Edge

I remember the WoD was coming to an end with the latest WoD RPG books when they first were released. Very similar to the current 3.5e --> 4e discussions. Strangely enough WW also said much of what WotC says "better", "stream-lined", "better", "faster play", "better"... Then again what company wanting to get you to spend your cash on their new edition would say "it's OK", "slight improvement in some areas, worst in others" about their new product?

S.


Arcmagik wrote:
Along with insults thrown at the players of such and the company for being money-grubbers and destroying oWoD.

Well, of course they destroyed oWoD. That was the whole point. They had the balls to go through with the story they were always saying they'd do: The world would come to an end. The ancients would return and tear the world to shreds. The works.

And they did it. Not some half-hearted "oh, this is of course still the old game, there's just some changes to make it awesomer and funner" and then trying to slip us a different game with a different world under the old name.

They were saying from the get go that they were making a new WoD, not revise the old or anything.

I have no problem with the nWoD setting (but then again, I have next to no investment, financial or otherwise, in oWoD), but can see why people like the old one better. But I do like the new rules so much more.

I also love McWoD, love Monte's take on the WoD and the chance to have a d20 version of the WoD.

The fun part here is that you can mix and match. Use the oWoD world with nWod rules, use nWoD world with McWod rules, and so on.


The war in my view on BOTH fronts is a one of back story/invested knowledge vs. commercialism.

I was a WoD player from before the release of Vampire (Yes, that's possible - my great GM picked up the first promotional flyer at a convention and ran a pickup game then and there.). I owned every book, novel and game that WW came out with. I was GLAD they blew up the world, granted, but I was aggravated at their reuse of old names with new concepts. It was confusing as heck. The new system is an improvement, but the new 'world' wasn't - that's the reason I've refused to move on. If I'm going to play a system, sure, change the politics around, modify things, whatever, but for goodness' sake, don't use names that don't vaguely correspond to the old concepts.

In D&D's case, yes, I am invested in 3.5e, but I was willing to embrace 4e. That is, i was until i saw they weren't going to embrace ME. I've been running a homebrew campaign world for ten years. I have a lot of time and effort invested in created races, characters, etc. Not only was there no conversion, they actively discouraged the concept, and released a half-finished system at that. There was no way to convert my game, since half the races and classes weren't supported. The rehaul of the spell system, needed as it was, doesn't work with anything I've done. And then there's the GSL. Like many, I had looked at the possibility of publishing the world. By the vague terms of the GSL, converting to 4e would have given WotC more rights over my creations than I was comfortable with.

Stepping away from my own world, There's the mangle they've made of the Realms - the only other world I played. Have a current campaign there? Screw you, said WotC. We're skipping a hundred years and tearing up your world so we can have a vague excuse for how the new mechanics could possibly work.

Because, I say sadly, they don't. The new game isn't D&D as we know it. It's both easier and harder to deal with. From a system driven by character flexibility and choice, we move to a videogame-analogue. If I wanted to play 4e, I'd take up World of Warcraft. At least it doesn't try to pretend to be what it's not.


I cast resurrection on this thread. Now I poop on it!


erisraven wrote:
Because, I say sadly, they don't. The new game isn't D&D as we know it. It's both easier and harder to deal with. From a system driven by character flexibility and choice, we move to a videogame-analogue. If I wanted to play 4e, I'd take up World of Warcraft. At least it doesn't try to pretend to be what it's not.

Super.

Enjoy your game.


erisraven wrote:
...The new game isn't D&D...

This is an exciting and groundbreaking assertion, never before seen in these forums.

erisraven wrote:
...If I wanted to play 4e, I'd take up World of Warcraft...

Wow, another zinger. 4E == WoW. I have never, ever heard that before.

*****

I can't speak for anyone else, but your carefully-considered, objective, and most of all, original take on this subject has utterly convinced me.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

No more edition war garbage please. That stuff is SO 2007.


James Jacobs wrote:
No more edition war garbage please. That stuff is SO 2007.

Agreed.

Although i am quite upset to see all this colors nonsense all over the pages of the new books nowadays.
Every respectable gamer knows well that a real RPG book has only black and white illustrations inside.

Spoiler:
Joking


Seldriss wrote:


Although i am quite upset to see all this colors nonsense all over the pages of the new books nowadays.
Every respectable gamer knows well that a real RPG book has only black and white illustrations inside.

Illustrations? And don't get me started on "binding." Real men use staples.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:
Seldriss wrote:


Although i am quite upset to see all this colors nonsense all over the pages of the new books nowadays.
Every respectable gamer knows well that a real RPG book has only black and white illustrations inside.
Illustrations? And don't get me started on "binding." Real men use staples.

I just fold back on itself...


Thread necromancy + trolling + flags = Locked.

51 to 82 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Joseph Goodman on D&D 4th Edition All Messageboards
Recent threads in 4th Edition