|
I do it because, imho, left to its own devices, Hasbro via the wotci prefer to publish a Chutes & Ladders game that makes money, moreso than a dungeons & dragons that maintains its integrity.5th Edition will come in a box and your character will be a generic, pre-generated piece of cardboard. That is the writing that I saw on the wall way back when Hasbro bought WotC. I just got the edition wrong. I knew then that the Dungeons and Dragons BRAND would be reduced to the lowest common denominator so that it could be monetized for maximum profit. I made peace with that and moved on with my life. I never bought more than a dozen of the 3.x books and still managed to have a blast playing for the better part of a decade. We slaughtered most of the 'sacred cows' that everyone harps about over a decade ago when we still played 2E. They made for some blessed hamburgers and the steaks were downright heavenly when smothered with blu cheese and with a side of portabellos.
Now, with Pathfinder, my group has a set of rules that we all agree on and that is what we'll be playing for the some time to come. We really appreciate Paizo going the distance by opening up the design process to us and listening to our concerns and then publishing a badace set of rules. We will continue to support them for as long as they continue to deliver the goods. Even if they had not come along we would not have started playing 4E because it lacks the dept of character design and development that we enjoy having in our game. We would have kept on happily playing 3.5 until our books fell apart.(Actually, we probably would have switched over to a heavily modified version of True20 but that is a subject for another thread.)
I don't see the need to inflict my views on anyone nor constantly remind everyone who doesn't play my way or share my views of what they are missing out on and why my way is better than theirs. I honestly don't care what some random person said in a internet forum either....
We've certainly got the same beliefs in Pathfinder RPG. I did my part to actively make that happen. When it comes to the subject of this thread, it sure is great to be part of the subculture that was not influenced in the hype of fourth edition. And yes, you and I would have played v.3.5 until they pried the books from our cold dead hands. I agree that the line of legacy has indeed split, with PAIZO carrying on where the game truly left off. And, with that I will happily leave this discussion in agreement.
It seems to me that people who want to argue for a certain style of gaming hurt their own cause by complaining about the game they dont like. If you want to see RPGs which cater to a particular style of play, I think it is fine to argue for that style loudly and often. However "Game XYZ sucks because it doesnt..." is not really very useful, imo.
As far as I can tell (as a relatively uncaring bystander) people who begin by arguing for some philosophy of rules-writing often slip in an aside about how much they dislike 'the other'. I think that's where contributing constructively to the development of the hobby becomes an edition war.
|
|
It seems to me that people who want to argue for a certain style of gaming hurt their own cause by complaining about the game they dont like. If you want to see RPGs which cater to a particular style of play, I think it is fine to argue for that style loudly and often. However "Game XYZ sucks because it doesnt..." is not really very useful, imo.
As far as I can tell (as a relatively uncaring bystander) people who begin by arguing for some philosophy of rules-writing often slip in an aside about how much they dislike 'the other'. I think that's where contributing constructively to the development of the hobby becomes an edition war.
You make a fair point Steve, but the OP's point of the blog reprint is clear. The argument to "stop pointing out why 4e sucks" is like putting a gag on the gaming community, influenced by the marketing of the behemoth of Hasbro. Its not an edition war really; I've never understood that inane term. From its inception, it was obvious that our game was going in a direction that was not desired by those who enjoyed v.3.5 and its predecessors. And speaking out, and the ralleying of support of those who felt the same way has led to a continuation of the open game movement under the OGL. This is far more factual than the misnomer of "edition war" conveys.
For a series of years, the marketing trend (the central question of the OP's post) was to place a veil over gamers eyes that only "100% official content" was truly dungeons & dragons. If you'll notice, much of that has dialed down now because its clear that Pathfinder RPG, for example, is probably more 100% true to dungeons and dragons than fourth edition will ever be. And disagree all you like, the marketing by the wotci had been fierce—and cast serious negative aspersions upon its own "former" customer base to fuel a level of diappointment overal against that company. As Jason points out in today's blog, "we live in a time of wonder, where the impossible is real," and PAIZO has done that one unlikely thing that the wotci could have never anticipated to keep the open game movement going for all times!
So, you see, I am with you in the idea that inane hate, or so-called "edition wars" never amount to much. I agree that those should be ended, and have never personally related to them. What the OP, I believe, is saying, is that the marketing of "this is the big new thing" influences a generation consciously or unconsciously about how the game is to be conceived, as dictated from a bully pulpit wherein a 900 lb gorilla stands. And, I'm just saying that the veil of marketing propaganda has been seen-through by the gaming community, and it is extremely valid for community members to continue communicating to one another why 4e sucks because not to do so places the apparatus of rpg companies in the total hands of Hasbro, and such a "gag order" would once again threaten the open game movement.
Today, we have no such situation. The open game movement is alive and well, and just getting started. The special thanks to Ryan Dancy in the front cover of Pathfinder RPG was a nice touch to encourage gamers to continue support for the d20/3.x style of play that produced such an incredible influence in the world of gaming, and will continue for aeons to come!
I can see the view that keeping quiet is agreeing to be marginalised(although I play both 4th edition and PF, my preferred system is pathfinder). I'm not advocating "putting up with it" by any means. What I was questioning is what is gained by saying "4th edition sucks" why not say "I want a system where the different classes have differing mechanics so it feels different." or "I want a system where the combat mechanics are not over emphasised and/or restrictive." or... whatever it is that you personally dislike. As I say, I'm a relatively disinterested bystander, but I find it curious since it seems to me that by leaving out the "4th edition sucks" part the disenfranchised leave themselves more solutions. Maybe there is a way to adapt the hated system (whichever that is) to your style of play, maybe there's a hybrid route, maybe you're just doing it wrong and what you see as a flaw is a misundertanding of the rules.
With regard to the marketing, perceptions of dishonesty, etcetera...that's actually the only form of 'edition hating' I can understand. Although I dont see it myself and suspect it's all one big misunderstanding - I can nonetheless appreciate that there are a number who feel, if not betrayed, certainly mistreated. I still dont think it should be couched as "4th edition sucks" though. Rather I'd prefer people say WoTC suck, since how a company treats people and the quality of the rules they sell are two separate issues (linked issues, but separate nonetheless).
I hope it's clear, I'm supporting the dissatisfied and encouraging them to speak up about what they dont like. I'm merely suggesting that they may get a better outcome by leaving out the denigration of any specific system.
EDIT: In other words I'm talking about the phrasing. Why not frame your comment as "I dont like game systems which do XYZ or which dont do ABC" rather than asserting one game is bad or "not for me" or whatever. I by no means wish to suggest anyone should shut up and accept what they're given.
|
It seems to me that people who want to argue for a certain style of gaming hurt their own cause by complaining about the game they dont like.
I agree. And I agreed with that logic back when it was Mike Mearls spending his time bashing 3.5 as 'boring math' and saying stuff like 'if you use Craft / Profession, sorry, but your game sucks' rather than up-selling why 4.0 was going to be awesome.
It's the same with politics. I don't care if Candidate X thinks Canditate Y is the debil, and has a 42 page list of reasons why. If I'm watching a commercial for Candidate X, I want to hear about Candidate X, darnit!
People see the words "edition change" and look no further. What changes were made? What do they mean? In this regard, the changes in 2nd->3rd edition and 3rd->4th edition are very different.
I had been playing 2nd edition for a very long time when 3rd came. I sat down with the new PHB in 2000, checking to see what was different. My first comment was "this is not D&D", to noone's surprise. However, reading more, I decided to give it a try, and I loved it. The reason was that all the new stuff echoed with the past. The biggest change was probably the streamlining of rolling dice, 1d20 plus modifier vs DC, higher is always better. This came in a situation where you had to remember how to roll in all sorts of situations, where skill checks went one way and attack rolls another. The insanity that was THAC0 was merely flipped, and a huge problem was solved overnight. Multiclassing had never worked well in 2nd edition, and got streamlined (though not perfectly) in 3rd. The Challenge Rating system solved a huge problem for me as a DM, in that I could now make educated guesses as to how bad a certain fight would be. Monsters shared the same statistics PCs did. And so on, and so forth.
When I got 4th, my first reaction was the same: This is not D&D. However, this feeling never changed despite playing it quite a bit. The difference is that where 3rd edition basically wanted to do the same thing 2nd edition did, only much better (I really can't stand the rules of 2nd edition nowadays), 4th edition has an entirely other idea. The game is (as far as I can tell) designed to shoehorn play into a very narrow style. Multiclassing is effectively gone in 4th, you need minis to play, nothing in the rules deals with any sort of roleplaying. But the changes are more insidious than that. With the new classes and their extensive masses of powers, creating new ones is a lot more work than it was. With their attitude in the GSL debacle, it doesn't take a genius to figure their intent out. Quite simply: If making new classes is a huge amount of work, especially regarding balance, third parties will only be able to create adventures. Joy.
So, to return to the original discussion: Yes, telling people what you think of the things they do is absolutely vital. They do listen, they read what we write in various forums. Thoughts shared and spread DO matter. Of course WotC has an incentive in trying to make the new edition look sparkly and make everyone think everyone else loved it. It's down to money. However, their blather about how edition "wars" are hurting the RPG industry is nothing but junk. They did the hurting themselves when they made a stupid game the new edition. They are the ones who should live with the consequences, not us.
Let's be thankful for three things:
* The OGL.
* Paizo.
* And the 3.5 stuff we already have, and will use till it falls to pieces.
I think the blogger takes the idea that "3.5 = simulationist (the very definition of which is up for debate) and 4e = gamist (ditto)" as settled fact, upon which he bases his whole thesis. I think that equation is an oversimplification, if not outright false.
That said, I can support his suggestion that if someone doesn't support the product or business practices of an RPG company, they should make sure that that company hears their complaint - by telling them and/or by supporting a rival company.
He seems to be advocating, though, that the "edition wars" have furthered that goal. I'm sure in some cases, they have, but in others, they have been destructive to the hobby at large.
I guess what I'm saying is, the sentiment isn't wrong, if it is put into action in the right way.
I think the edition wars have made sure that we have a small community and one that is split into parts that will rarely talk civilly to each other. One board I post on had at it's height about 1k posters, after the edition wars that number is less then about 300, and split about evenly in the pro/con 4e camps. Sure more then a few will say things like I play both and maybe they do, but generally they are pro-4e in their leanings and postings. The two camps stay away from each other and has shrunk the gaming community I think as a whole. Heck look at he amazon boards, maybe there are 5-10 posters about D&D/Pathfinder anymore, before 4e there were many dozen who regularly posted, not anymore.
4e and the edition wars that followed and in many places continue (even on these boards) has harmed the PnP community. Not because 4e is a good or bad game, but because of the reactions is brought about by both sides.
There are links in the original blog post that aren't in the cut and pasted one that have more info on 1. The differing amount of simulation in 4e and 2. 2e->3e changes, since both of those seem to be related tangents in the thread I thought I'd point that out.
Kits introduced some doozies. Everyone and their dog took the Myrmidon kit, as a Fighter, it seemed, and there were plethora of powerful races with insane advantages in various splatbooks. (My favorite cheese? The Xixchil, which starts with two limbs that function like glaives, and can add more to itself surgically, as well as adding armor to itself surgically. My Xixchil Myrmidon glaive-specialist, with 9 attacks / 2 rounds, doing an average of 72 hp / round, went through Against the Giants like a bullet through flesh. In one end and out the other, covered in blood.) There were also some very gross things that could be done with archers, but that was never my particular interest, I just remember the archer in that group keeping up with my Xixchil, and we had a Legolas-and-Gimli competition going on.
The most egregious caster kid that I saw was the Totem-Sister, for Druids, in Elves of Evermeet. All the advantages of a Druid, plus the ability to create free runic carvings, all day long, that could do stuff like double the range of missile weapons or act as a cure light wounds (unlimited free cure light wounds? Yes, please). Several Runecarver type kits (one in a Giants sourcebook, another in a Dwarves sourcebook, both for the Realms, IIRC) were even more egregious, but I never got around to sampling those tasty cheeses.
Various supplements also introduced fairly crazy spells, with Dwarves Deep having some fantastic spells for Clerics, such as Fire Eyes (2 eye rays / round for 1 round / level that do 2d8 fire damage each and automatically heat metal armor on the target to the final round of effect from a heal metal spell, with a second hit, even in the same round, resulting in the metal items being destroyed).
We made various house rules to tone things down, but still blew away 'core' stuff. I blame Unearthed Arcana for starting the arms race, with classes like the Thief-Acrobat, which was just plain sad...)
Thanks for the trip down memory(read:NIGHTMARE!) lane, Set. It was exactly this kind of stuff that made me take up 3.0 in the first place years ago, despite being mocked by the people in my science fiction club, all of whom were hardcore 2nd ed adherents. I ran into a shocking number of them at the wedding I attended this weekend, and they still play with their own individual houserules, having ignored 3.x completely, so take heart 2nd ed fans!
|
|
I can see the view that keeping quiet is agreeing to be marginalised(although I play both 4th edition and PF, my preferred system is pathfinder). I'm not advocating "putting up with it" by any means. What I was questioning is what is gained by saying "4th edition sucks" why not say "I want a system where the different classes have differing mechanics so it feels different." or "I want a system where the combat mechanics are not over emphasised and/or restrictive." or... whatever it is that you personally dislike. As I say, I'm a relatively disinterested bystander, but I find it curious since it seems to me that by leaving out the "4th edition sucks" part the disenfranchised leave themselves more solutions. Maybe there is a way to adapt the hated system (whichever that is) to your style of play, maybe there's a hybrid route, maybe you're just doing it wrong and what you see as a flaw is a misundertanding of the rules.
With regard to the marketing, perceptions of dishonesty, etcetera...that's actually the only form of 'edition hating' I can understand. Although I dont see it myself and suspect it's all one big misunderstanding - I can nonetheless appreciate that there are a number who feel, if not betrayed, certainly mistreated. I still dont think it should be couched as "4th edition sucks" though. Rather I'd prefer people say WoTC suck, since how a company treats people and the quality of the rules they sell are two separate issues (linked issues, but separate nonetheless).
I hope it's clear, I'm supporting the dissatisfied and encouraging them to speak up about what they dont like. I'm merely suggesting that they may get a better outcome by leaving out the denigration of any specific system.
EDIT: In other words I'm talking about the phrasing. Why not frame your comment as "I dont like game systems which do XYZ or which dont do ABC" rather than asserting one game is bad or "not for me" or whatever. I by no means wish to suggest anyone should shut up and accept what they're given.
Makes good sense and well said.
|
|
It seems to me that people who want to argue for a certain style of gaming hurt their own cause by complaining about the game they dont like.I agree. And I agreed with that logic back when it was Mike Mearls spending his time bashing 3.5 as 'boring math' and saying stuff like 'if you use Craft / Profession, sorry, but your game sucks' rather than up-selling why 4.0 was going to be awesome.
It's the same with politics. I don't care if Candidate X thinks Canditate Y is the debil, and has a 42 page list of reasons why. If I'm watching a commercial for Candidate X, I want to hear about Candidate X, darnit!
Agreed. The wotci marketing used the term "sucks" and depicted a red dragon s!*!ting on someone providing feedback. They categorized those who disagreed as trolls. And, not everyone was taking the route of "4e sucks", some were pointing out the elements of 30+ years of tradition or game history e.g. vancian magic that were not brought forward. The marketing tendency was to insult the customer base... something I had only heard that the wotci did in previous years, but it never hit home until they treated me, formerly a loyal consumer, that way. And since, I won't buy things from them. They wish to go on believing that changing up the game every four years (or 2 years) as a business method, and employment method (if you look at the folks they fire around Thanksgiving each year), is a viable one. I say no.
As for 4e. As a game I hear that it is functional. But I would have preferred a little more dungeons and dragons with my edition. And coupled with the harsh GSL, it became obvious that they were trying to monopoloze the industry. This, imho, was never an edition war per se, much moreso a hostile take over of dungeons and dragons by the makers of Star Wars minis, magic the gathering, and hasbro-esque game design for the purpose of making money. I like to think gamers can make up their own mind about which edition is more true to the tradition/history or spirit of the game. And I believe that folks who honor Gary Gygax by listing him as a source of the original material is the proof in the pudding for what constitutes a dnd game any more.
I would never expect any professional to speak harshly about other companies, because it looks bad. But as humble consumers, we know that we have every right to speak up against those who want to mainstream a game that is dnd more in brand logo than in substance. For a number of years this may have been taboo, but if we want to see the open game movement thrive, we must continue to point out, like Set has done, that it was they who drew first blood by saying that the fan's current game of v.3.5 sucked. One look at the GSL, the tomfoolery of the alignment system circumcision in 4e, terrible PR, or the wonton destruction of the Forgotten Realms, and gamers could see company behaviors that, from a design or marketing perspective, were quite questionable. A lot of this insulted gamers, and they were entitled to feel that way.
If you aren't playing OSRIC, you aren't playing D&D.
|
Pax, et al..
Got a little worried there when "reading the 'feed". Thank you for bringing this back (despite temptation to engage) to the philosophical discussion I was aiming for. I do appreciate it.
I have responses of my own forthcoming that I hope will add to this discussion, but can't atm. But I felt the thank you and restatement of purpose shouldn't wait.
This just appears to be an attempt to justify a continued hate for 4e to me. As someone who has preferred other systems since about 1984, I find it rather hypocritical. I can not count the number of times I was shut down with the ' Nobody’s telling you what to do!' type statements.
I've snipped a couple posts. No name-calling, please. If you were affected, feel free to repost your argument without it.
Trying to stay outside of the edition items and focus on the marketing aspect of the transition and its after-effect -
What company comes out with Product B, New and Improved! then says our Product A sucked? Anyone who stays with Product A will not be serviced, etc. That type of hard sell pushes the consumer base into 2 divided camps. Take the 2nd base, that is not being served, and remove their access to outside support and historical items and it gets worse. The edition just becomes the poster child for anger at off base marketing.
With stuff like this it falls to the consumer to recreate the bridges. I think some gamers have. But they have to want to do so.
If the animosity could be put aside...
|
|
CourtFool - Ummm ... if you read half of what I or the other posters have written, you'd not be oversimplifying thus. if I have mistaken your response and this was less pointed and more a generic philosophizing of "these styles of debates as they degenerate" then please ignore the following rebuttal. At least til the Gygaxian quote/article, which I thought was kinda cool.
I have no desire to "Bash" 4E and I will refer you to my 1st Post with the statement of intent. The purpose here is to generate design theory and discussion and have people think about the "potentially controversial" topic in a constructive fashion. As usual, there will be some who can handle that, and others who will degenerate it into some heated vitriolic mudslinging. They exist on BOTH sides of the arguement. Case point by admin's need to delete some of the more heated exchanges which you can now no longer see.
I would like to think this discussion is and has long since evolved beyond "______ system is bad because of X, Y, Z"
However It is foolish to presume that one CAN Discuss the merits and flaws of Gamist versus Simulationist theory and the relevant systems' impacts on thus without inciting a diatribe on why each party feels that there's is the "One true D&D" and all others are Heathens bastardizing the art.
I will admit to some feeling of this, until first with 2nd --> 3rd and now with 3.5 --> 4th finding "my style" the minority from the MMO generation flooding the market. Which is well and good, save that now, in the most INNOCUOUS fashion, I try to seek a philosophical debate about the merits and flaws thereof, and invite those of like and unlike mind equally to present their Logical and Verbose arguements. And for a couple of dissenters and protestors, I am being accused of a "thinly veiled attempt to bash 4E".
I contest that. I contest it strongly, given how much effort and carefully worded temperance I have used to avoid -exactly- that sort of half-hazard impression.
To keep this moving forwards and in the realm of productivity, insofar as the Simulationist versus Gamist arguements, and the quoting of the 'Late Great Gygax aka Zagyg, please see the following. Granted, it's an attempt to plug an MMO conversion of a diversionary RPG product "Legendary Adventures" but it does provide certain insights into the man's views on the topic. (Parsed to keep the quotes quotes, I hate that I can't have it all be small when it's over one paragraph!)
Harvey: RPG's often split people into several camps, sometimes polarized between those players more interested in interactive storytelling and those players more interested in killing monsters and collecting treasure. There're also people who play for the interesting tactical challenges, seeing the game as an extended board game. Then, of course, there are those of us who enjoy all three. Have you had the chance to play the LA Online RPG yet? (Is it stable enough yet?) How do you see the game environment shaping up? How heavily does it cater to each of the player types described above?
Gary: Insightful, that question, and allow me comment on it a bit before answering.I do not, and I stress NOT, believe that the RPG is "storytelling" in the way that is usually presented. If there is a story to be told, it comes from the interaction of all participants, not merely the Game Master--who should not a "Storyteller" but a narrator and co-player! The players are not acting out roles designed for them by the GM, they are acting in character to create the story, and that tale is told as the game unfolds, and as directed by their actions, with random factors that even the GM can't predict possibly altering the course of things. Storytelling is what novelists, screenwriters, and playwrights do. It has little or no connection to the RPG, which differs in all aspects from the entertainment forms such authors create for.
As false to the game form as the pre-scripted "story," is play that has little more in it than seek and destroy missions, vacuous effort where the participants fight and kill some monster so as to gain more power and thus be able to look for yet more potent opponents in a spiral that leads nowhere save eventual boredom. So pure hack and slash play is anathema to me too.
Tactical, and strategic, play is a fine addition to the RPG, and if it is in-character, something I see as desirable, In this category fall such things as exploration, economics, politics, and even intrigue. The LA RPG was designed to accommodate any and all styles and play approaches, and hopefully so presented as to encourage an amalgam of all the elements of the game form. That encourages varied adventures, different challenges from time to time, and well-rounded characters (and players) that find the game has long-term interest for them. In short, I agree with you in that all aspects of the RPG should be presented and played..
(editted for topical nature and to reorder my thoughts properly)
|
|
Trying to stay outside of the edition items and focus on the marketing aspect of the transition and its after-effect -
What company comes out with Product B, New and Improved! then says our Product A sucked? Anyone who stays with Product A will not be serviced, etc. That type of hard sell pushes the consumer base into 2 divided camps. Take the 2nd base, that is not being served, and remove their access to outside support and historical items and it gets worse. The edition just becomes the poster child for anger at off base marketing.
With stuff like this it falls to the consumer to recreate the bridges. I think some gamers have. But they have to want to do so.
If the animosity could be put aside...
Succinctly put. With pulling of all Wizards/TSR OOP materials from all 3rd party vendors, even in digital form, it forces those with nostalgic tastes to essentially piracy and filesharing networks where they would otherwise be gleefully paying customers.
I've even seen rumors of a "compilation project" from one particularly wounded group of consumers who've decided to recompile and republish the lost material into a coherent "Compendium", while doing some edits therein. Interesting stuff, but I will not repost it here due to 'board policy and piracy issues...
With regards to "Camp A" and "B", aside from saying "You enjoy your flavor and we'll enjoy ours" How would you recommend/hypothesize bridging this gap?
It is quite possible I am missing your point, VedicDragon.
The quoted text seemed exceedingly one sided to me. And that is coming from someone who is no fan of 4e. I was certainly not trying to single anyone in particular out.
It seemed the majority of the posts were in agreement with the quoted text. No matter how eloquently it may have been put, not matter how politely it may have been worded and no matter how much the quoted author claims this is not just another bash on 4e it still is a rationalizing on why one should continue to point out the flaws of the system in hopes of making a difference.
I want to make a difference too. I want to see an end to class based systems. On this very board, it has been questioned why I even post here if I do not play D&D/Pathfinder.
If you can not understand where I would see the irony in that, I honestly do not know what to say.
You can spin it how ever you want, but if you are trying to rally people to the cause of showing WotC the error of their ways, it is a crusade. I will not say you are wrong because I have my own crusade. Just as long as we can all agree we are all pots and kettles.
If you were making another point, VedicDragon, I apologize. Please elaborate. Also, if my opinion offends you, I apologize. It is not meant as an attack.
If you don't like 4E and would like real results, take it up with WotC in a polite and constructive manner. To think that edition bashing on internet forums is somehow "fighting the good fight" is, at BEST, misguided.
You can spin it how ever you want, but if you are trying to rally people to the cause of showing WotC the error of their ways, it is a crusade. I will not say you are wrong because I have my own crusade. Just as long as we can all agree we are all pots and kettles.
This is the single best paragraph I've read ever since I signed up to these boards... and it came from a poodle... someone must bring balance to the force...
*humps poodle's leg* There, that's better.
Back to topic... sadly, there's no escaping the "old is new again" gamist trend in today's mainstream games so, from where I see it, simulationist players have two choices: either GM themselves, house ruling these games to fit their style while hoping to charm at least another player/GM into indoctrination in order for simulationism to survive (perhaps even thrive with some luck), or come to terms with the facts and move away to greener pastures, either fading into obscurity or perhaps making other games thrive. Europe has plenty of roleplaying games people hasn't heard about, and even Anima, as Charlie Foxtrot of a system as it is, is fairly good at simulationism (or at least better than 4E and PF, that's for sure).
Bridging the gap? First the desire must be there. More than camps A & B, it's cabins A & B, with summer camp (gaming) being the commonality. Scenario or setting. Locking this (and older) stuff up is probably one of the big barriers. Trying to maintain exclusivity slices the demographic in two. When a company missteps they really need to address it. This is not saying 4E is a misstep, only their handling of it and the cutting off old products. This forces competition, and some of that competition will be good. Very good.
A question bears asking, 'Is anyone outside of Paizo actually listening?' If no, why bother. WoTC has to make the first steps for the damage to be undone.
You can spin it how ever you want, but if you are trying to rally people to the cause of showing WotC the error of their ways, it is a crusade.
Thank you for this.
I think the problem with a crusade for 3e or 4e is that most have made up their mind based on their educated decision. I've played both 3e and 4e enough to know which system I prefer. Now you can call it gamist or simulated, roleplaying or rollplaying, or authentic or counterfeit, I know what I want to play and I kind of resent people telling me I'm wrong.
It's fine if someone wants to tell me why they don't like 4e (although I've heard most arguments and they get redundant). The problem is, I'm not going to "see the light" or be reborn into the waters of PF. I already know what I personally have more fun playing. If you want to convince a beginner why they should play PF, by all means. I just don't need to hear that I shouldn't be having fun, when I am.
The only thing I feel is a real shame is that I wasn't very nice to the 2nd edition conservatives during the previous split. As for the current spat, it's much worse, with the company producing the stuff we use actually starting to bash their own previous products.
The split isn't going to heal, the bridge isn't going to be built, until and unless the company in question makes a formal apology and does what it can to set things right, especially regarding the Forgotten Realms. At that point, I will be quite happy to join in the cumbaias. I still won't start playing 4th edition, though.
Until then, I will play 3.5 and PFRPG, and love doing it.
|
With most DMs and players being deep into their careers, and often married with children, games like Spirit of the Century and Savage Worlds were doing exceptionally well despite being produced by small companies with low marketing budgets. Simulationism, as a trend, was out as the amount of time available for gaming by many gamers was way down and emphasis had turned toward being able to tell a significant chunk of the story in the 4 hour blocks of time the average gamer group had available each week.I do not agree with your thoughts here. IMHO Rules and Playstyle (ie. Simulationist vs. Gamist) have NO correlation. Look at EGGs and Dave Arneson's OD&D from 74'. The 3 Booklets have less than 100 pages but were definetly using the Simulationist approach. It takes you less than 5mins to create a Character. Encounters are also much, much faster; even with groups of 8-10 players.
I rather think that the gamist approach takes into account the sources gamers use today for their inspiration. I do not think that many younger gamers have read a Robert E. Howard or H.P. Lovecraft or Edgar Rice Burroughs. But I think many have read Terry Godkind,...At this point you and I must not be using the same definition of simulationism and gamism.
I find it very difficult to argue that BECMI was a simulationist system. In fact I'd go so far as to say that huge amounts of BECMI DNA are in 4E. More often then not if the designers were looking for a way to speed things up they used a mechanic that would be recognizable from BECMI. I'd say that both BECMI and 4E are gamist compared to 3.5 and, as often as not, they are the same kind of gamist.
I have to agree with this. I see little AD&D DNA in 4e, but I see a LOT of BECMI.
Like I said in another thread, whether you see this as good or bad depends on how you view AD&D. Remember, a lot of Mentzer acolytes (I miss level titles, sorry ;) ) didn't care for D&D the Gygax (Or Holmes/Moldvay Basic) way, and this was in the '80s.
|
|
I find it very difficult to argue that BECMI was a simulationist system. In fact I'd go so far as to say that huge amounts of BECMI DNA are in 4E. More often then not if the designers were looking for a way to speed things up they used a mechanic that would be recognizable from BECMI. I'd say that both BECMI and 4E are gamist compared to 3.5 and, as often as not, they are the same kind of gamist.My example was OD&D, the three Booklets from 74', which is different from the Mentzer BECMI versions. OD&D still had a lot of the wargame rules (the Combat system for example). And the wargames from that time at leats, tried to simulate realty as best as possible for a game to still be playable.
Furthermore, even BECMI is much, much closer to 3rd edition than to 4th edition.
But I am intrigued and willing to concede your point, what mechanics do you think 4th took from BECMI that were not already in 3rd?
Don't get wrapped up in mechanics. I doubt Jeremy is thinking of rules as much as feel and attitude.
|
|
It is quite possible I am missing your point, VedicDragon. The quoted text seemed exceedingly one sided to me. And that is coming from someone who is no fan of 4e. I was certainly not trying to single anyone in particular out.
Irony being what it is, I found it one of the more mature postings on the matter and found it more evenhanded than most views on the topic. But heck, that's subjectivity for ya.
As for missing my point ... perhaps. I was more seeking like minded commiseration, not for any specific "Storm the Gates of WotC" effort or anysuch etc ... but perhaps the consolidation of resources of like mind to a particular end in perhaps maybe writing a treatise of Simulationist Gaming ... a Manifesto, if you will? And overall I simply enjoy engaging in pointed debate and encouraging discussion so that these things can at least be viewed multidimensionally, as opposed to the extremely generic "Cabin A versus B" methodology that these "Wars" (Be they OS Wars, Console Wars, Edition Wars or Religious Wars) usually degenerate into.
It seemed the majority of the posts were in agreement with the quoted text. No matter how eloquently it may have been put, not matter how politely it may have been worded and no matter how much the quoted author claims this is not just another bash on 4e it still is a rationalizing on why one should continue to point out the flaws of the system in hopes of making a difference.
Indeed. I see flaws in 3.5 edition too. I was one of those 2nd Edition holdouts who had to deal with this once before, and sought both sympathetic views and to engage the contrary viewpoint in the hopes of encouraging change, if not in WotC directly in at least a spreading of and encouragement of this philosophy of gaming, the "espirit de corp" if you will, of my "subniche" within the genre. I also like to get the other side's perspective, if both contentious groups can agree to be rational.
I want to make a difference too. I want to see an end to class based systems. On this very board, it has been questioned why I even post here if I do not play D&D/Pathfinder. If you can not understand where I would see the irony in that, I honestly do not know what to say.
I can -CERTAINLY- identify with that. We all have free speech and I really hate when ANYONE from ANY side of an arguement is treated that way. I am becoming very bitter with being on the receiving end of that treatment twice over, and seeing others of similar mindset (Pax, if you don't mind my presumption in grouping you there) beset with similar tactics. Heck, even differing mindsets have a right to not be treated thus. It really soils my souflee'.
You can spin it how ever you want ...
I feel I have been rather straightforward and transparent with my motives and purpose here. At least in the immediate discussion. The Crusade exists regardless of my involvement or not. However, just because I have a -active- crusade on the side does not mean it is the be all or end all of my discussions on the matter, nor that I cannot engage, appreciate and understand the opposing side. This is the difference between being on a Quest (preservation of my gaming style) and being a Medieval Knight or Saracen Warrior willing to slaughter thousands and bathe in the blood of your enemies for profiteering, lands, or the Zeal because "My God Wills It". I would like to think of myself and my peers as evolved beyond that.
If you were making another point, VedicDragon, I apologize. Please elaborate. Also, if my opinion offends you, I apologize. It is not meant as an attack.
Apology accepted. I do hope I clarified better this time. As for does your opinion offend me? Nahhh ... we're all entitled. But I -do- get frustrated with being labelled or having an otherwise productive discussion blanket-labelled as X when it is predominantly Y. However, you and everyone else here has every right to your opinions, and if you feel that what I have done here is with the ulterior motive of -bash- 4.0 edition, then the failure is MINE that I have somehow failed to communicate my joy in the -debate- and joining of minds, over the diatribe and rhetoric of others.
I -do- however thank you for your polite rationality and care in responding diplomatically. It's more than most can bother to afford.
Back to topic... sadly, there's no escaping the "old is new again" gamist trend in today's mainstream games so, from where I see it, simulationist players have two choices: either GM themselves, house ruling these games to fit their style while hoping to charm at least another player/GM into indoctrination in order for simulationism to survive (perhaps even thrive with some luck), or come to terms with the facts and move away to greener pastures, either fading into obscurity or perhaps making other games thrive. Europe has plenty of roleplaying games people hasn't heard about, and even Anima, as Charlie Foxtrot of a system as it is, is fairly good at simulationism (or at least better than 4E and PF, that's for sure).
That's actually not a bad point. Not that this hasn't been said before, of course. My goal, or at least one I am developing now, is a unified, cross-genre, cross-system organization of speculative fiction writers, contributors, actors and dungeon masters who can appreciate this artistic styling and thematic trappings and perhaps create a renaissance thereof through online networking and modern technology. I not only resist I outright -reject- the simplistic A or B, Right or Left Problem Solving methodology, especially to complex problems. It smacks of "Put up or shut up" or even "if you're not with me ... " .. a very limitting perspective. As complex and fairly intelligent beings with a plethora of resources and ingenuity available to us in the modern world, I would like to think that we can overcome challenges such as this proactively with a little bit of concerted effort and cooperation. I've been talking about such for a while, but your retort, sir, has been the kick in the hindquarters I need to get this up and running. Thank you. Link forthcoming.
On a separate note (if you like I will create a related topic and link, or you could provide one) How IS Anima? It has been highly recommended to me.
"I demand an apology!" is a pretty silly statement. Why do you deserve an apology? Were you an internet troll who spouted meaningless inane garbage and the caricature of such a creature getting pooped on offended you? Sorry, in that case you don’t deserve an apology; you deserved to get pooped on. You don’t feel like that caricature represented you and your actions, then what are you offended by and thus why should they apologize for something that was not directed at you, just because you are too soft skinned?
Maybe you are upset that they implied that the rules you play under were too convoluted and the math was too hard for you? Ok, but don’t then turn around and hold up another company that has done the same thing as a shining example.
Sorry, demanding that people come to your house and bend over and kiss your rear when you have admitted that even if they did that you still wouldn’t purchase their products is silly in the extreme. Stop wasting your time trying to change companies you are not interested in. Follow enlightened self interest. If a company makes products that you want, purchase them. If a company does not, don’t. If enough people follow your interest then more of those products will be made.
If there isn't a company making the products you want, then you have to suck it up and admit you are too small of a market to matter. You can then make your own products or you can accept change and go with the desires of a larger market. Heck if there was a [print] company still making 3.5 products, I'd take a good look at them and if they met my needs/wants then I'd purchase from them. But I don't demand that any company start making 3.5 material just because it is what I want.
|
|
"I demand an apology!" is a pretty silly statement. Why do you deserve an apology? Were you an internet troll who spouted meaningless inane garbage and the caricature of such a creature getting pooped on offended you? Sorry, in that case you don’t deserve an apology; you deserved to get pooped on. You don’t feel like that caricature represented you and your actions, then what are you offended by and thus why should they apologize for something that was not directed at you, just because you are too soft skinned?
Maybe you are upset that they implied that the rules you play under were too convoluted and the math was too hard for you? Ok, but don’t then turn around and hold up another company that has done the same thing as a shining example.
Sorry, demanding that people come to your house and bend over and kiss your rear when you have admitted that even if they did that you still wouldn’t purchase their products is silly in the extreme. Stop wasting your time trying to change companies you are not interested in. Follow enlightened self interest. If a company makes products that you want, purchase them. If a company does not, don’t. If enough people follow your interest then more of those products will be made.
If there isn't a company making the products you want, then you have to suck it up and admit you are too small of a market to matter. You can then make your own products or you can accept change and go with the desires of a larger market. Heck if there was a [print] company still making 3.5 products, I'd take a good look at them and if they met my needs/wants then I'd purchase from them. But I don't demand that any company start making 3.5 material just because it is what I want.
Umm who demanded an apology? Did you even read any of the relevant posts before posting that diatribe? I didn't demand -squat-. I simply stated I contested a certain viewpoint, and it turned out, the recipient and I were talking past each other. If you are indeed talking to someone specifically, instead of making an EXTREMELY generic and off-base rebuttal to the actual content of this debate, please clarify.
Did your post contribute a single logical or productive point to the debate? Or are you in fact the Troll you are hypothesizing about?
As for "Demanding" anything. No one here seems to be demanding squat. It's a philosophical debate. Now, if you -are- responding to someone, please cite your evidence and what prompted this rant. Otherwise, kindly refrain from the utterly extraneous chatter that has NOTHING to do with what's actually being discussed here, which has evolved FAR FAR beyond petty squabbling or whining over editions, as many of you detractors mislabel anything resembling a productive discussion that so much as WHISPERS a comparison between play styles and a correlation in edtion rules and marketting ideologies.
And "Suck it Up" generally elicits a "get stuffed" response. Unless of course that was your goal, to distract and aggravate. If so Bravo, I will not be your catspaw in that, and productive activity on this front -will- continue, here or elsewhere.
If we could only find a way for the GAMERS to reconcile...
Corporate America never will.
Umm who demanded an apology?
Well this is the most blatantly obviously one:
The only thing I feel is a real shame is that I wasn't very nice to the 2nd edition conservatives during the previous split. As for the current spat, it's much worse, with the company producing the stuff we use actually starting to bash their own previous products.
The split isn't going to heal, the bridge isn't going to be built, until and unless the company in question makes a formal apology and does what it can to set things right, especially regarding the Forgotten Realms. At that point, I will be quite happy to join in the cumbaias. I still won't start playing 4th edition, though.
Until then, I will play 3.5 and PFRPG, and love doing it.
Of course others have also talked about how offended they were, how WotC have insulted them and how they will not ever buy from such a company again, etc.
Agreed. The wotci marketing used the term "sucks" and depicted a red dragon s#@@ting on someone providing feedback. They categorized those who disagreed as trolls. And, not everyone was taking the route of "4e sucks", some were pointing out the elements of 30+ years of tradition or game history e.g. vancian magic that were not brought forward. The marketing tendency was to insult the customer base... something I had only heard that the wotci did in previous years, but it never hit home until they treated me, formerly a loyal consumer, that way. And since, I won't buy things from them.
Of course, it is easy to overlook these kinds of statement, especially if one is like-minded.
If so Bravo, I will not be your catspaw in that, and productive activity on this front -will- continue, here or elsewhere.
I do find it interesting that you immediately thought the post was targetted at you. I had no intention of pointing fingers at anyone in particular, just a theme I was seeing, but, well, you demanded I give some justification for my post. So I apologize to Sissyl and Pax for being forced to point out your posts.
|
|
Umm who demanded an apology?Well this is the most blatantly obviously one:
The only thing I feel is a real shame is that I wasn't very nice to the 2nd edition conservatives during the previous split. As for the current spat, it's much worse, with the company producing the stuff we use actually starting to bash their own previous products...The split isn't going to heal, the bridge isn't going to be built, until and unless the company in question makes a formal apology and does what it can to set things right, especially regarding the Forgotten Realms. At that point, I will be quite happy to join in the cumbaias. I still won't start playing 4th edition, though.Of course others have also talked about how offended they were, how WotC have insulted them and how they will not ever buy from such a company again, etc.
Agreed. The wotci marketing used the term "sucks" and depicted a red dragon s#@@ting on someone providing feedback. They categorized those who disagreed as trolls. And, not everyone was taking the route of "4e sucks", some were pointing out the elements of 30+ years of tradition or game history e.g. vancian magic that were not brought forward. The marketing tendency was to insult the customer base... something I had only heard that the wotci did in previous years, but it never hit home until they treated me, formerly a loyal consumer, that way. And since, I won't buy things from them.Of course, it is easy to overlook these kinds of statement, especially if one is like-minded.
If so Bravo, I will not be your catspaw in that, and productive activity on this front -will- continue, here or elsewhere.I do find it interesting that you immediately thought the post was targetted at you. I had no intention of pointing fingers at anyone in particular, just a theme I was seeing, but, well, you demanded I give some...
Fair enough, but did you fail to see where this discussion has evolved far and beyond that?
And no, I didn't take it personally -per se- with a target at me. I am just so utterly tired of having a productive turn, only to have a counterpoint which hijacks this discussion back into the realm of "Edition Wars".
I don't think from your citations that there is a 'Demand' for a 'mea culpa' so much as feelings of resentment from an alienated previously loyal consumer base which Wizards'/Hasbro has deliberately slighted insofar as even bashing previous playstyles and systems that are (through corporate technicalities) their own intellectual property. On the other hand, there -HAVE- Been companies that do exactly that when the consumer base is vocal enough or revenues suffer. I don't think those who feel slighted should be bashed for that as unrealistic or childish, even if it is long odds.
It's the Gaming equivalent of *hypothetically* Shatner telling Star Trek Fans to "Get a Life" and then getting upset at not getting casted as a cameo in the new Rebooted Franchise. (Not that this happened immediately within each other, just posing a hypothetical metaphor).
That being said, I will happily start a new thread which is repurposed more to my actual goal, now that obviously most of the productive debate to be had (at least here) has been spent.
Irony being what it is, I found it one of the more mature postings on the matter and found it more evenhanded than most views on the topic. But heck, that's subjectivity for ya.
I grant you it was more polite, but the barbs were still there.
As for missing my point ... perhaps. I was more seeking like minded commiseration, not for any specific "Storm the Gates of WotC" effort or anysuch etc ... but perhaps the consolidation of resources of like mind to a particular end in perhaps maybe writing a treatise of Simulationist Gaming ... a Manifesto, if you will? And overall I simply enjoy engaging in pointed debate and encouraging discussion so that these things can at least be viewed multidimensionally, as opposed to the extremely generic "Cabin A versus B" methodology that these "Wars" (Be they OS Wars, Console Wars, Edition Wars or Religious Wars) usually degenerate into.
Am I correct in understanding you do not like 4e and want more people to play 3.5/Pathfinder?
Indeed. I see flaws in 3.5 edition too. I was one of those 2nd Edition holdouts who had to deal with this once before, and sought both sympathetic views and to engage the contrary viewpoint in the hopes of encouraging change, if not in WotC directly in at least a spreading of and encouragement of this philosophy of gaming, the "espirit de corp" if you will, of my "subniche" within the genre. I also like to get the other side's perspective, if both contentious groups can agree to be rational.
This seems to support my above conclusion. Fair enough. I, of all people, am going to defend your right to your opinion. I am also going to defend the right of other's opinion. Even the ones who think your opinion is wrong and offer reasons why they feel thus.
Some people are not born with a silver tongue and may have difficulty expressing themselves beyond "STFU grognard!" They feel the way they do about their system of choice for their own reasons which they simply can not put down quite as eloquently.
Please do not think I am advocating people should just try to shout one another down. However, it seems to me you are trying to silence dissent at the same time as claiming you are being silenced. You implied support for the article and many people view it as yet another attack.
You do not want to bash 4e, but you wish to point out its flaws. Many people do not perceive the flaws you do. In fact, they seem them as features. Perhaps they are a little frustrated at trying to explain how they are features when the same tired arguments are used again and again.
I am becoming very bitter with being on the receiving end of that treatment twice over, and seeing others of similar mindset (Pax, if you don't mind my presumption in grouping you there) beset with similar tactics. Heck, even differing mindsets have a right to not be treated thus. It really soils my souflee'.
Pax, I love you man. But if you honestly think you can continue to get in your little jabs in and not draw a counter punch, you are quite delusional.
If I found the quoted post one sided, I am sure the 4e fans found it down right insulting. Maybe dragon pooping on them insulting.
I feel I have been rather straightforward and transparent with my motives and purpose here. At least in the immediate discussion. The Crusade exists regardless of my involvement or not. However, just because I have a -active- crusade on the side does not mean it is the be all or end all of my discussions on the matter, nor that I cannot engage, appreciate and understand the opposing side. This is the difference between being on a Quest (preservation of my gaming style) and being a Medieval Knight or Saracen Warrior willing to slaughter thousands and bathe in the blood of your enemies for profiteering, lands, or the Zeal because "My God Wills It". I would like to think of myself and my peers as evolved beyond that.
I certainly was not trying to silence you. I am not calling you a bad person. I was just trying to point out that the 4e fans feel the same way about 4e as you do about 3.5/Pathfinder. You want to regain king of the mountain status and they wish to keep it.
For every person you see as blinded and unwilling to compromise, recognize you appear the same way to them.
But I -do- get frustrated with being labelled or having an otherwise productive discussion blanket-labelled as X when it is predominantly Y.
Just as 4e fans are frustrated at reading the same fallacies quoted about their preferred system.
I -do- however thank you for your polite rationality and care in responding diplomatically. It's more than most can bother to afford.
I am not emotionally involved. This entire issue is absurd to me as both systems are full of fail. I think many people are too emotional or simply not equipped to express themselves in different manner.
|
|
The only thing I feel is a real shame is that I wasn't very nice to the 2nd edition conservatives during the previous split. As for the current spat, it's much worse, with the company producing the stuff we use actually starting to bash their own previous products.
The split isn't going to heal, the bridge isn't going to be built, until and unless the company in question makes a formal apology and does what it can to set things right, especially regarding the Forgotten Realms. At that point, I will be quite happy to join in the cumbaias. I still won't start playing 4th edition, though.
Until then, I will play 3.5 and PFRPG, and love doing it.
Excellent point.
Excellent point.
I disagree.
Even if WotC apologized, you are not going to buy their product by your own admission. Why would they apologize?
For everyone that thinks WotC fired you as a customer, let me ask you this. Did you fire them first?
If you were not buying every single thing they published, then they did not need to replace you. They only need to sell more than they were selling.
I am not arguing whether or not WotC should have been fired. That seems an entirely different thread. The idea of entitlement bandied about seems illogical and misplaced.
"But they insulted us!"
And you have insulted back, have you not? Should you apologize to WotC? They attempted to point out perceived flaws in the system so that people would understand why they were making a new system. I daresay they were trying to cut off the Flame War of 3.0 -> 3.5.
Amazingly still a viable, and fun game to play.
Class based and full of suck. :P
|
I am just so utterly tired of having a productive turn, only to have a counterpoint which hijacks this discussion back into the realm of "Edition Wars".
I'm not sure how this thread was ever about anything else.
The original post is an extended quote entitled, "Why complain about 4e?" and opened with:
As one of those who is known to still vent the occasional rant at 4e, let me chime in to explain why it’s not just pure wickedness and hate behind why I and others who find fault with 4e don’t just “shut up and go away.”
It is an extended explanation of why people who don't like 4e should be vocal about it.
Perhaps the issue you are having with this thread is a disagreement about what constitutes "edition wars." In my book, "My edition is better than yours" automatically qualifies. Maybe you are using a stricter definition, but I think that may be why you aren't getting the reaction you were hoping for.
|
|
The original post is an extended quote entitled, "Why complain about 4e?" and opened with ...
I reposted that to inform and generate discussion. The fallacy that I lap up -everything- that that person believes and would put it exactly the same way, is indeed that. Now, did I think he had some very valid points and was more even-keeled than the usual "4E Sucks man! And here's why!!!"? Yes. However, read MY post, not his, for the frame and mindset of the discussion. The full title is "Why Complain about 4e? Stop the Edition Wars!!" And it offers rational points for WHY people are offended. You have to understand and at least -pretend- you give a damn (not you specifically, just the reader) in order to have anything resembling a nonbiased view on it.
Perhaps the issue you are having with this thread is a disagreement about what constitutes "edition wars."
We do. I don't think my critique of WotC Corporate policy in implementation ACROSS editions or alienating previous markets should count as an edition war or 4E bashing so much as "Here is why those of you who may or may not be 4E fans should be aware that some of us, who might otherwise have bought in to 4E got alienated so quickly and profoundly". Again, the supposition is that you care and that I can politely critique delivery and other factors several degrees removed from the product itself without being publicly stoned.
Please do not think I am advocating people should just try to shout one another down. However, it seems to me you are trying to silence dissent at the same time as claiming you are being silenced. You implied support for the article and many people view it as yet another attack. You do not want to bash 4e, but you wish to point out its flaws. Many people do not perceive the flaws you do. In fact, they seem them as features. Perhaps they are a little frustrated at trying to explain how they are features when the same tired arguments are used again and again.
Where have I pointed personally to a specific flaw in the system? The flaws I have stated are in the publication stylings, the flavor, the "design philosophy" thereof. I could write a 4E treatise, and take all the tidbits that were hacked out of the 3.5 publications, (albeit streamlined as they did republish some suggestions repetitively) and silence this point. I have even read the DMG II for 4E and they do a halfway decent job of putting a SMIDGEN of that back into the game. However, when they're already what, 8-10 books deep in supplements, those are elements that should already BE in the game. It becomes justification for more publications which therein lies the scam that leads to two years from now screaming "It's too bloated! Can it for 5.0". The issue, is the Business Practice. Not the System. The Ideology and the Paradigm proposed for the game, not the system.
Am I correct in understanding you do not like 4e and want more people to play 3.5/Pathfinder?
Indeed. I see flaws in 3.5 edition too. I was one of those 2nd Edition holdouts who had to deal with this once before, and sought both sympathetic views and to engage the contrary viewpoint in the hopes of encouraging change, if not in WotC directly in at least a spreading of and encouragement of this philosophy of gaming, the "espirit de corp" if you will, of my "subniche" within the genre. I also like to get the other side's perspective, if both contentious groups can agree to be rational.This seems to support my above conclusion. Fair enough. I, of all people, am going to defend your right to your opinion. I am also going to defend the right of other's opinion. Even the ones who think your opinion is wrong and offer reasons why they feel thus.
Some people are not born with a silver tongue and may have difficulty expressing themselves beyond "STFU grognard!" They feel the way they do about their system of...
Apologies, there are alot of nestings in quotations so I am seeking to be as topical and as succint in my response as possible.
I view BOTH Editions 3.5 and 4E as extremely flawed from a fluff angle. I was a 2nd edition holdout and think it was CRIMINAL the amounts of rich heritage on the cutting room floor. So the argument that I favor 3.5 over 4 is rather moot when given that perspective. I could care less, because I have seen this all before; twice or thrice over if you count 3.0->3.5 or 1st -> 2nd (and lemme tell you THOSE guys have reason to be bitter with how TSR grossly mishandled that "conversion" or "bridging" of products ... but at least it was a fair effort).
I eventually adopted 3.5 as it was the easiest with modification to convey my ideas and campaigns to the widest market. As much as I may not have liked the system, I DID and DO approve of the revolutions that the OGL have had on the RPG market and cross polination and germination of some truly amazing and thoroughly enriched, uniquely flavorful settings. So I "upgraded", vowing to bring what was left out of 3.5 back into the game in the manner of lore, fluff and stylistic play (a balance of "Simulationism" and "Strategy").
Then 4E came out, and to my mindset, not only compounded the grossly foolish errors and disrespect to previous customer base as the 2nd to 3E jump did, but COMPOUNDED on it even further in vastly extravagant sweeping gestures. Now, again, the system is one thing. I can even swallow that. But the marketting and PR, and shall we say their "paradigm" that has been adopted is what REALLY got me actively vocal.
I am above SYSTEMS at this point. I am a grown man who has taken higher level math, and coached underpriveledged and learning disabled kids in a variety of topics. I can design my own systems and what is conveyed.
What this debate (to me, the original poster) has always, always been about and should never have deviated from (though everyone has a right to say whatever the hell they like) is about the RPG Methodology/Paradigm behind it, and how the shifting perspectives of a Capricious corporation that happens to hold the license for the "Flagship" of the hobby creates and engenders a drastically different evironment of play, and shapes and moulds new generations of gamers, and to my mind, robs them of the most glorious elements of play.
It's not about Simulationism versus Gamism versus Strategy / Tactical.
As the Gygax Interview I posted above implies, and as is referenced in 2nd Editon DMG (not a direct quote, but it's there) and 3.5 DMG II, it's about the -balance- between these styles of play. Obviously everyone is going to cater to their own groups and their own preferences. But when the Flagship fails to present a balanced perspective on this, as it clearly CLEARLY has (IMHO, and herein lies the debate where people feel I am bashing 4E when it has NOTHING ... NOTHING to do with system and everything to do with the instructional texts, less than subtle undertones and marketting and publication paradigm behind it) is this leads to EXTINCTION of one of the styles.
I am not all for the "Storytelling" method or "Simulationist" approach over "Gamist". Heck, there comes a time to roll some dice, and that better happen often or things get stale or downright Oratory. I am arguing for BALANCE amongst these elements, and when the paradigm shifts as dramatically as it has, there can be -no- balance as the entire perspective of the other side (of which I straddle the fence on) is thrown entirely to the wolves "Here ya go Johnny, sink or swim".
Now don't get me wrong, I do love and support PFRPG but it was never the purpose of this thread, to my mind, to forward one system or approach over another.
My feelings (which I can understand the confusion as I have withheld actual elaboration on these points to generate a less hostile and more open environment ... which I have been clearly mislabelled as anyways) are as follows:
1.) I am less a fan of 4th Edition System than I am of 3.5, I am less a fan of 3.5 than I am of PFRPG, I am less a fan of PFRPG than I am of Exalted. I am less a fan of Exalted than I am of Rifts/Palladium. And So on. and So On. Each has their merits and flaws, but having seen the Hasbro scam of "Built in Obsolescence" twice over right now, I am FAR FAR FAR beyond caring about systems. My beef with Wotc/Hasbro is philosophical and business-practices oriented. They need to stop shafting their previous markets when catering to new ones. Those of you who are fans of 4E, just wait and see what I am talking about when 4.5 or 5 comes out in the next two years. They are already talking about it. Enjoy blowing your $$$ to have everything be reprinted with less page count and content, and have vast swaths of your investment be rendered instantly obsolete.
2.) The Paradigm of marketting .. Imagine of Apple did a Proverbial "Screw Off" and changed the ports on all their computer and ipods, rendering all previous investments and purchases (including apps and music/videos) obsolete? It existed and it was called Rhapsody. It did not do well, hence why they owe their extremely limited survival to an iphone app to stream music now, something that has been implemented repeatedly and better. But I digress. The point is that the Paradigm here is "Screw our previous customers' investments. We're hiring a new team and we're going to turn everything on its head". Followed by five years later "Screw that mess, we're REALLY gonna shake it up this time". Followed by two years later "To heck with that we're REALLY gonna shake it up this time".
3.) Playing without a DM. Nuff Said. Now amidst a circle of experienced dungeon masters, and with some provisos, this could be really cool. But with the "Dumb everything down to a 4th grade level of comprehension" paradigm which seems to be governing all the writing, critical details like that which could have created a very artful style ... instead of a bunch of people sitting in a circle, taking turns ... killing monsters on a sheet. This is just one example of the -paradigm- which is "Story takes back seat to the game" as opposed to the balance of "Story and Game as a fusion of artful method of shared recreation". And hey, if the "Gameist" approach, for lack of a better term appeals to you, that's cool.
4.) You can be gamist in previous editions and simulationist in 4E. The systems may or may not encourage this, which is a separate debate point I have yet to entirely make up my mind about. My beef here is the NATURE of the publications and the flavor text / statement of purpose, which without explanation and expansion -kills- simulationism in that it does not teach the former, as opposed to gameism which comes naturally by following-the-instructions-as-now-written.
If you favor a balance of the two, this leads to a lot of extra work for experienced DM's. Ok Fine, training players goes with the job description. However, it also basically sterilizes the genre or makes it much MUCH more difficult on the whole for simulationist gaming to prosper or even progress. It has ramifications, whether one can realize that or not. It can be seen throughout the progression of years and has become Worse ... and Worse. ... and WORSE. NOT that I favor "Storytelling" or "Simulationism" over that.
As stated before, that is BORING.
There NEEDS to be a balance between the two.
5.) Final point - I am not reacting to you or others because I feel specifically targetted. I am reacting to the fact that I am being told the purpose of the the thread is a bout X (In this case, Simulationism OVER Gamism, which is wrong, or 4E SYSTEM Sucks, also wrong) when it is and always has been striving for Y (The Effects of the New Paradigm on the Market at Large, the Subtler Side Effects of 4E's marketting direction on the Genre as a whole, and debating the merits and flaws of Simulationist and Gamist theories versus Strategy Tactical, and the balance of all three).
Now that I have clarified, I am going to drive a Busload of Irately Rabid, Flamethower wielding Platypi into the next person that tells me I was trying to Or this thread is about or I-hate-it-when-you-3.5-Grognards do ... when I have already repeated my statement or purpose several times.
P.S. Removed due to offense given, despite the attempt at diffusing tension with tongue-in-cheek jocularity, Caveman-insurance-commercial style.
*falls over, twitching insensibly in frothing rage of frustration*
|
|
VedicDragon, it sounds like I and everyone else on this thread have been responding to what you wrote in your OP, rather than what you meant to write in your OP. When you quote a long passage that contains, among other things, a long explanation for why people should vocally object to all things 4e, and then try to make the discussion be about some other element of that posting, your goal will inevitably get lost.
Out of respect for your attempt to redirect the discussion, I'll back out of this thread now. I've said what I wanted to say about the original blog (the parts you didn't want people to discuss, apparently).
But, for the record, the long part of your previous post written in "caveman English" was over-the-top, rude, and insulting.
Tee hee. Seems people are utterly incapable of reading an entire message before commenting.
I don't have a high opinion of WotC or 4th edition. Things used to be different, but now they are merely a huge company in the business of D&D ONLY for the money. The beancounters took over, kicked out everyone who cared about the game itself, and gave the remaining people orders to make a game that would borrow as much as possible from Magic the Gathering, World of Warcraft and force the use of minis. I am honestly surprised they didn't push harder into Pokemon territory as well.
Further, this company has actively told me that what I play and like is bad, stupid and useless, and that I suck for liking their old stuff. They have shut down Dungeon and Dragon magazines. They have cut pdf sales. They have "remade" the OGL into something pathetic they call the GSL, the main point of which was to make 3rd party publishers commit to it in advance, expensively, and then be forbidden from using the OGL license.
Now for the issue I wrote about. A lot of people got mad because of this behaviour from WotC. Some liked their new stuff, and the "edition wars" were a fact. Now, my view of 4th edition and WotC as they are today is clear, and I will tell people why I don't like 4th edition. But the 4th editioneers, including WotC, don't want me saying this. They "want the edition wars to end". I am sure they'd like that, because all it means is that nobody gets to say bad things about them or their game anymore.
So, to answer another person wanting the "edition wars to be over", I simply told them my cost for letting bygones be bygones. I want a formal apology, and a reversal of the most disastrous decisions, particularly those regarding Forgotten Realms. If I get this, fine, I will be a happy and loyal WotC customer who speaks in glowing terms of their willingness to improve themselves in the discussions I join. If I don't get this, my part of the "edition wars" will not be over. When companies do bad things to people, they deserve every sort of tongue-lashing they get, and sometimes they change their positions due to such. However, if they can, they ALL want everyone who is unhappy to feel they aren't morally justified in protesting. And their fans usually phrase this as "You have no right to demand an apology, and you suck if you complain about anything they do".
No. My freedom of expression doesn't care about you, about being morally justified, or about WotC and their preferences. I think what they did stinks, and that's that. I have quit buying their stuff, I have a new company who does what I want them to in Paizo, and I am a happy person, RPG-wise. It's not a big deal to me anymore, but I won't let anyone tell me I can't speak out in a reasonable voice.
And again: The apology I "demanded" was nothing but the price I set if WotC really wanted me to like them.
|
|
VedicDragon, it sounds like I and everyone else on this thread have been responding to what you wrote in your OP, rather than what you meant to write in your OP. When you quote a long passage that contains...your goal will inevitably get lost.
But, for the record, the long part of your previous post written in "caveman English" was over-the-top, rude, and insulting.
Regarding the Postscript, I apologize. It was apparently my poor attempt to apply the humor of the Offended Cavemen as seen in those commercials, to the debate in an attempt to defuse with humor. It did not convey my intended effect of nested irony in a play-within-play fashion, clearly. I have since removed it.
As for "I and everyone else on this thread". I count about 4 people at least who've followed what I am getting at, at least partially, from -both- camps of the 4E/3.5 divide, not that THAT statistic has -ANYTHING- to do with what I am talking about really, save for the inferences that -others- keep wanting to place that it does.
With regards to my original post, let's see that again WITHOUT the quotation from the article. I guarantee you that what -I- personally wrote, is devoid of 4E bashing and VERY CLEAR on intent. The content of the Article quotation is debatable, but I refuse to be hobbled by an implied context of a quotation when I deliberately say "let's discuss this in a civil fashion with no edition bashing of the greater ramifications ...".
That being said, thank you for at least recognizing where I -wish- to go with this, if I have not made that abundantly clear. If I have not conveyed this enough, as I have said before, that is -MY- fault and I apologize for not being clearer somehow.
Original Post follows ...
This is NOT a bash 4th edition or 3.5 / PFRPG or any other system post.
This is a place for musing the potential philosophical and sociological ramifications of certain trends and business practices on the Gamer subculture.So please, let's keep it civil and intellectual. Nonsequitors, hyperbole and "______ is stupid/sux etc" is NOT welcome here in any form, no matter WHICH edition you prefer.
Now to business:
I recently happened by a blogpost that captivated my interest as it did and does far better what I have wanted to for a while. I have reposted its contents here for the perusal of all.
Why Complain About 4e? Stop the Edition Wars!
A partial Repost of the articleHere is the Link to the Blog where I reposted this from.
So what do you all think? I found it definite food for thought about deeper ramifications on our genre and subculture and the impact these things have on the market as a whole ...
|
|
Pax, I love you man. But if you honestly think you can continue to get in your little jabs in and not draw a counter punch, you are quite delusional.
I have no delusions about who the poodle is. We've spoken now for years. My only regret is that my jabs are little, yet you see the "counter punch" as larger... It has felt quite the oposite. Over the years on these boards the posts have generally improved, allthewhile remaining essential the same. Here is some humor to lighten things up, just for the smurf of it:
Court Fool: I am a poodle. Peeeeeee. Sudden eloquence and sensibility. Sudden non-sequiturs. Peeeeeeeeee.
Pax Veritas: As E.G.G. said back in 1979..... rant.... its not an edition war...... the wotci have defiled our game...... more flowery eloquence..... something funny.
Mairkurion: I can see both sides... one clarification though....
WhimsyChris: Just talk about what you like....
ProphetofIstus: When will the World of Greyhawk become an official PAIZO setting?
ScotBetts: I won't admit that I work for the wotci... people should stop crapping in my threads.... Oh, you're mentioning 4e somewhere... POOF - here I am....
Josh F.:Hey... keep it clean folks or I'll pop you like a fireball-eating kobold.
Pax Veritas: ...anything....
Poodle: I disagree. That sucks. Sorry Pax. I like you though.
Pax Veritas: That's okay my esteemed hydrant-peeing friend. Its all good. The wotci tried to monopolize the industry though....
Society of Cultural Relativists: ... stop telling me to discriminate amongst the crap in society - I grew up getting a trophy for everything! Everything is okay for everyone, and there is nothing you can do to change a megacorporation. I learned that in school, so I just play gameboy and text my friends. I don't want to talk about anything that might cause a disagreement.
Old Schooler: ...back in the day, DM's kicked us in the testicles and we liked it! DMs used wonky, disparate rule sets and we kissed the ground they walked on.
Learned about DnD through an MMORPG: What's wrong with just killing creatures and take their stuff? That's how the game is "actually played."
Edit: Oops, the last comment came from WOTC
Pro-3.x Camp: .... at least in the previous versions it felt like an rpg and you could role-play stuff.
Pro-4e: 4e never said you couldn't, we just left all that stuff up to the GM.
Pro-2e: What? President Kenney has been shot? Why didn't anyone tell me?
Pro-OSRIC/1e: ... holy crap, this game is a lot of fun!... man, S&W is cool too, and I've tried C&C, but OSRIC/1e does it for me man. I party like its 1983!!!! You should join us.
Most Game Companies: .... we like....er, uh... what do you like? Oh, yeah... that's what we like too.
The WOTCI: ...Man, I just love the smell of burning sacred cow in the morning! You want yours burnt on one side or burnt on both sides?
PAIZO: *perfect quality in every way*
PAZIONIANS: We love you PAIZO! Can we order you pizza? Can you just give us all your stuff in MS Word? No? Er... We love you PAIZO!
Neurotic GAMERS: .... can we talk about the apostrophe on page 442 for four hours? ... now that you've published the 700 page book, can we start writing version 2.0? .... where is the print-friendly blank page book coming out on .pdf?
Non-neurotic GAMERS: Edition Wars? Meh. Can't we all just get along?
Governor Arnold: Itz NOT an Edition war!
The late Gary Gygax, father of roleplaying games: "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."
VedicDragon: .... twitch..... twitch..... twitch.......
*hope u laughed a little though*