Bodes ill

[Aubrey the Malformed]

When I was a nipper we played Rolemaster, RQ and CoC, not D&D (whch is why I missed all the classic stuff from 1e and 2e). We were aware of D&D (of course) but as a game it didn't really appeal as it felt cumbersome and simplistic (I'm talking pre-3e editions) compared to the other. So I think that early-teenage kids will have opinions on the aesthetics of particular systems and not just be driven by "coolness". In addition, you really need to learn the various sub-systems of 3e/PF which might give the the feeling of greater depth (or unnecessary complexity - delete as feels appropriate). In the end it is probably a healthy thing - the kids will be familiar with two or more systems (as we were when kids) and so get a broader experience of playing. That said, I think their view of "one book, one system" is going to be rather tested as at least two more PF rule books are coming out this year, and I bet if these go well there will be more after those.

[Blazej]

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

That said, I think their view of "one book, one system" is going to be rather tested as at least two more PF rule books are coming out this year, and I bet if these go well there will be more after those.

I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to.

Are you bringing up the Pathfinder RPG books that continuing to come out, the one that has a subscription indicating this is probably a continuing thing, the line that they (if I recall correctly) said will have three books per year, possibly divided equally among a GM books, Player books, and Monster books? I'm guessing I'm wrong because your statement seems to indicate that they are being somewhat covert about continuing to publish this books when that doesn't seem to be the case.

If that was your intent, one could have said something like "It is only one book because of how new it is. Paizo is continuing to publish more rulebooks as time goes by." After that one could compare the rate of new supplements from each company, but betting that Paizo will make more rulebooks if the next few are successful is, to me, like betting that the sun will come out tomorrow.

[Admiral Jose Monkamuck]

Different game designs results in a different feel for a game. There are campaigns that I wouldn't use either system for.

The feel that the 4e design creates is not what I want to run. Therefore I do not run 4e. I currently run Pathfinder on Saturdays and Anima on Tuesdays. Despite both being fantasy the two are very different in their feel. They are not the same game. I've also in the past run 3.5, GURPs, Rifts, Hero System, BESM, Rolemaster and yes 4e. I'll probably end up trying some other systems in the future.

Maybe these kids are into buzz words and have no idea what they are saying. Maybe they are "infected" by the grown ups. Maybe they actually have looked at the books for both systems and realized that the kind of game they are now looking for is better supported by Patherfinder.

My advice is to not treat them like morons and assume they have some idea of what they are talking about. They've picked the game system they like. Go with it. It's not like you can't go back to 4e if they decide it was more fun.

[KaeYoss]

Scott Betts wrote:

we're also saying that this is not indicative of any sort of trend, except the well-known trend that children tend to be fickle when it comes to what they think is cool, and how they react to the new and shiny. It's clear from the children's comments that they are not acting on a well-informed collective opinion, but rather a set of loose rationales. I'm pretty sure that this situation is a product of circumstances, rather than the game systems themselves.

So, having been proven wrong: How did you sleep? Feeling threatened by 12-year-olds making well-thought decisions that amounted to them not liking 4e? :D

I'm not saying, and was never saying, that 4e is something for stupid little kids to grow out of - it was you who was quick to point out that kids are stupid.

I really think you should apologise to the kids. :D

(I'm having a blast here, by the way. This "not taking things seriously" is great! You should try it. Leads to less picking on kids for not liking your game.)

[Aubrey the Malformed]

Blazej wrote:

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

That said, I think their view of "one book, one system" is going to be rather tested as at least two more PF rule books are coming out this year, and I bet if these go well there will be more after those.

I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to.

Are you bringing up the Pathfinder RPG books that continuing to come out, the one that has a subscription indicating this is probably a continuing thing, the line that they (if I recall correctly) said will have three books per year, possibly divided equally among a GM books, Player books, and Monster books? I'm guessing I'm wrong because your statement seems to indicate that they are being somewhat covert about continuing to publish this books when that doesn't seem to be the case.

If that was your intent, one could have said something like "It is only one book because of how new it is. Paizo is continuing to publish more rulebooks as time goes by." After that one could compare the rate of new supplements from each company, but betting that Paizo will make more rulebooks if the next few are successful is, to me, like betting that the sun will come out tomorrow.

My point is rather less sinister than that. I'm simply saying the if the appeal of PF lies in there being a single book (maybe two if you need the monsters) then there aren't going to be just one or two books in the very near future, and there are likely to be more and more as time goes on. I'm not suggesting anything covert, nor have Paizo actually said they weren't going to produce more PF rule books (quite the opposite). I'm simply suggesting that if the equations the kids are applying are

PF = 1 book = good

4e = lots of books = bad

then it's going to be less clear cut going forward.

[Aubrey the Malformed]

KaeYoss wrote:

(I'm having a blast here, by the way. This "not taking things seriously" is great! You should try it. Leads to less picking on kids for not liking your game.)

What, you mean you are trolling the 4e board? Who would have thought it?

[TriOmegaZero]

The real comedy is that Scott thought telling Kae to stop posting would work. :)

[Peasant Railgun]

KaeYoss wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

we're also saying that this is not indicative of any sort of trend, except the well-known trend that children tend to be fickle when it comes to what they think is cool, and how they react to the new and shiny. It's clear from the children's comments that they are not acting on a well-informed collective opinion, but rather a set of loose rationales. I'm pretty sure that this situation is a product of circumstances, rather than the game systems themselves.

So, having been proven wrong: How did you sleep?

I slept very well on the large pile of money I saved by subscribing to Dungeons & Dragons Insider!

Imma let you finish, but Scott's Tales from the Rusty Dragon is one of the best conversions of all time! B)

KaeYoss wrote:

Feeling threatened by 12-year-olds making well-thought decisions that amounted to them not liking 4e? :D

I'm not saying, and was never saying, that 4e is something for stupid little kids to grow out of - it was you who was quick to point out that kids are stupid.

I really think you should apologise to the kids. :D

(I'm having a blast here, by the way. This "not taking things seriously" is great! You should try it. Leads to less picking on kids for not liking your game.)

[Matthew Koelbl]

Gorbacz wrote:

I'm sure that the 4ed is better balanced than 3ed, but the player interest in optimization remains the same. Hence, somebody after power builds *will* dig thru CharOp forums anyway. If there would be no optimization and no power builds, that forum would be empty. Instead, it has 303 pages. So powergaming is alive and well, and tying it to 3.5 is kinda derogatory.

I think the point is that in 4E, you can certainly optimize a character. Most of those posts on the CharOp forums do just that, making the most effective builds they can find. But the thing is - those builds are still in the same playing field as the average character. If they sit down at the same table, the CharOp build might hit an enemy on a 7 while the average character needs a 12, and the CharOp build might do half-again, or even twice the damage. They will seem like a more effective character, certainly.

But the other character won't be irrelevant. I had a real problem in high level 3.5, where an optimized character could have an AC and attacks 15 to 20 points higher than an average character. You just couldn't challenge the same characters with the same opponents - they were operating in completely different leagues.

Now, I understand Pathfinder helps with that (though I couldn't comment on it myself.) But the level of powergaming in 4E is very definitely more limited than what was possible in 3.5, regardless of how many pages there are in the CharOp forum. Not because it isn't possible, but because it isn't as necessary.

And that's the thing, and why this thread (or at least some of the responses in it) are silly. Everyone plays one of these games for their own reasons, and those reasons change rapidly from one person to the next.

It is just as absurd to claim that people only play 3.5/PF because they want to be world-breaking powergamers, as to claim that 4E is a less-mature system that true gamers eventually 'graduate' from. Anyone making either claim should really take a step back and try to take an objective look at what they are saying.

I like 4E because I feel it has more support and opportunity for roleplaying, between better mechanics for it and more freedom to build my character based on concept rather than optimization. But that's just me. I know others play 3.5/PF because they feel that it has more support and opportunity for roleplaying, between a more interwoven and simulated reality and a more robust system of instant spells.

Neither of us is wrong. We have both simply found a system that offers what we are looking for in a game. And that's the most important thing. You can't objectively claim one system is better or worse, or that one is for adults and one for kids, or that one is about combat and the other is about RP. They are both all of those things to different people.

As for the terribly chosen thread title and the question at the heart of it... no, I'm sorry Tadkil, but your example really doesn't bode ill - it doesn't bode much of anything, since it is just one example. There are certainly plenty of people who might be trying out Pathfinder. They are also plenty of people getting into 4E. I haven't seen any true indications that the game industry is on the verge of failure. Everything seems to say that D&D is doing well, and Pathfinder is doing well, and this is even before WotC's upcoming drive to bring in new players.

That said... if the actual views the kids have expressed are the ones you mentioned in their opening post, then I am dubious about them being genuine opinions as opposed to talking points they've gathered from elsewhere. They are certainly free to form their own ideas, but some of them read way too much like biased claims without any foundation in the game, and certainly don't speak to any 'maturity'.

On the other hand, they might be finding Pathfinder appealing in general, and simply having trouble articulating their own views, and so are falling back on such tropes. I really can't say - I'm not there, and I'm not them. But I think it was a poor call on your part to come into the forum and put forth their views in such a fashion, and offer it as the suggestion that 4E is to be outgrown. We've definitely had some decent discussion grow out of it, but we've also seen a bunch of the usual edition war nonsnse, along with the reemergance of some of this forum's most famous trolls, and I think that could have been avoided with a more reasonable opening post.

[Scott Betts]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

The real comedy is that Scott thought telling Kae to stop posting would work. :)

You can't blame me for wanting to give him the chance.

Well...okay, maybe you can.

[TriOmegaZero]

We need 'Don't feed the trolls' signs around here. :)

[Blazej]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

We need 'Don't feed the trolls' signs around here. :)

Sadly they feed one another.

[Ross Byers]

Since this thread doesn't seem to be able to be anything but Yet Another Edition War Thread, its locked.