Mearls pleading for unity


Gamer Life General Discussion

451 to 500 of 1,627 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

Russ Taylor wrote:
Easy. Pathfinder has respect for what came before, instead of dropping spellplagues and innuendo on it.

Lighthearted criticism of what came before - especially self-criticism - is suddenly the sign of a lack of respect?

But really, that does sound a lot like "Because I like one company and dislike the other."

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:


The first part of each of these is really iffy. Each segment was pointing out criticisms of the edition, not of the fans of that edition. The second part ("therefore you can't have fun") is you. All you. You were never told those words, by anyone. They were not even implied.

So, again, as before, the real question becomes: Why have you decided to add those words?

Of course that was what was implied. When you see a TV spot where someone struggles with the old or with a competitor's product the advertiser is showing us how inferior that product is/was and so when they show what they were selling the viewer instantly realizes how great the new product is.

"How could I ever play this old and flawed game again now that this new game is out?"

That's the question they want the view to ask themselves. They want people to think that they didn't have as much fun with their old product as they will with this new product. I mean if they leave people thinking that they were having a blast with their older versions why would they need an update?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Besides, I see no war here. I see yet another group of people taking a call for togetherness as a sign of weakness to attack. This is entirely one way.

Took you long enough to get here, Prof.


Russ Taylor wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Could someone bring up why wizards saying "Grappling is way too complicated" is horrible and dastardly, and Pathfinder explicitly changing the grappling rules because they're way too complicated is the stuff of angels and saints?
Easy. Pathfinder has respect for what came before, instead of dropping spellplagues and innuendo on it.

Yeah, having their contributors run around and tell people that were fine with 3.5 that they were incompetent. Great respect you contributors have there.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

pres man wrote:
Yeah, having their contributors run around and tell people that were fine with 3.5 that they were incompetent. Great respect you contributors have there.

You've completely lost me with whatever you're referring to there.


Russ Taylor wrote:
pres man wrote:
Yeah, having their contributors run around and tell people that were fine with 3.5 that they were incompetent. Great respect you contributors have there.
You've completely lost me with whatever you're referring to there.

From what I can gather, he's implying that Paizo directed Kevin to make statements that people are incompetent.

So, basically, he's constructing fantasy, as usual.


Russ Taylor wrote:
pres man wrote:
Yeah, having their contributors run around and tell people that were fine with 3.5 that they were incompetent. Great respect you contributors have there.
You've completely lost me with whatever you're referring to there.

And you don't even have enough respect to read the thread you are posting in. It keeps getting better. Respect, huh!


Those who see only hate for 4E seem to be missing the fact that the hate doesn't come from a single source or a single reason. I see 4E as being very similar to Vista in how its viewed by the public. Both systems were extremely dramatic departures from what had come before, and due to this were forced to rely on what could be considered moderately forceful marketing tactics that the companies involved were not accustomed to having to use. Specific complaints about individual changes and specific marketing attempts all got stacked on top of each other creating a body of complaints that took on a life of its own. I recall a thread about White Wolf's attempts at updating their systems that suffered the same thing. Had any of these systems been marketed with a different brand name not tied to the past in any way shape or form, they would have stood a much better chance of being judged on its own merits. As it was, the people marketing them were forced to find justification for why they changed so much so quickly, and the collection of those justifications was more than the PR departments involved, none of which had really had to deal with significant negative press previously, could manage.

Liberty's Edge

pres man wrote:
Russ Taylor wrote:
pres man wrote:
Yeah, having their contributors run around and tell people that were fine with 3.5 that they were incompetent. Great respect you contributors have there.
You've completely lost me with whatever you're referring to there.
And you don't even have enough respect to read the thread you are posting in. It keeps getting better. Respect, huh!

I’ve been reading the thread and I missed it too. Can you direct me to the reference so that I can choose a side and start baying for blood?

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

pres man wrote:


And you don't even have enough respect to read the thread you are posting in. It keeps getting better. Respect, huh!

Please, let's keep this from become a trollfest.

So I've read his post. #1, I don't think Paizo put him up to anything. #2, what I get out of it is, if you can't handle grappling ,and you don't house rule it, you're not being a competent DM (not quite the same as saying incompetent, there's a bit of middle ground there). It's not that nice a thing to say, but it's a far cry from saying if you played 3.5 and were fine with it, you're incompetent.

For folks who want to quibble about saying one group is competent meaning another is incompetent, synonyms and antonyms aren't that binary. Consider "ugly" and "beautiful". Somewhere between competent and incompetent lie struggling and learning :)

Contributor

Scott Betts wrote:
Russ Taylor wrote:
Easy. Pathfinder has respect for what came before, instead of dropping spellplagues and innuendo on it.

Lighthearted criticism of what came before - especially self-criticism - is suddenly the sign of a lack of respect?

But really, that does sound a lot like "Because I like one company and dislike the other."

Given that TSR was bought by WotC, I'd say that doesn't exactly count as "self criticism" for the first two editions.

As for the "call for togetherness," while I think Mearls does want to repair the damage, the words would sound less hollow if they were accompanied by anything aside from an obvious survey for 5th Edition.

What would make them sound more like unity? Releasing the past editions and 4th edition as well as PDFs. Watermarking would be fine, though it would be preferable without. A free supported conversion utility for that content as well, making it so that I could use a 4e or 5th edition product with my Pathfinder game if I felt like it, or even with 1st edition if I wanted to run an old school game. This would necessitate some meaningful return of the OGL as well. Likewise, return of print editions of Dragon and Dungeon.

In short, some actual move towards unity beyond simple words.

I should note that I do not hate all of the 4e. The revised cosmology of the Feywild and the Shadowfell is something that has been overdue since 1st edition and is a bit of worldbuilding I find both elegant and pleasant, and I like other bits and bobs. Having dragonborn as an actual race (rather than 3.5 "reborn of Bahamut") also made logical sense (even if I dislike the illustration of them as the hornytoad folk).


Russ Taylor wrote:

Please, let's keep this from becoming a trollfest.

You rang?


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
The revised cosmology of the Feywild...

Agreed: brilliant!

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
...dragonborn ... (even if I dislike the illustration of them as the hornytoad folk).

Bwahaha!

Liberty's Edge

As far as the ads being discussed, I never saw them. I didn’t have much interest in 4e at the time and wasn’t keeping up with the marketing.

I think though, as far as people being offended by them, the context should be kept in mind. Some people were already (somewhat understandably) upset with wotc for various reasons (cancelling print Dungeon and Dragon, what some might see as dishonesty regarding whether a new edition was on the horizon, dropping support for a game edition that they loved, whatever). In that context an ad that is intending to poke ‘harmless fun’ at those people could definitely be construed as offensive in context for those people, regardless of the actual intent.


Successful Troll salutes Successful Troll's successful brethren.


Mothman wrote:

As far as the ads being discussed, I never saw them. I didn’t have much interest in 4e at the time and wasn’t keeping up with the marketing.

I think though, as far as people being offended by them, the context should be kept in mind. Some people were already (somewhat understandably) upset with wotc for various reasons (cancelling print Dungeon and Dragon, what some might see as dishonesty regarding whether a new edition was on the horizon, dropping support for a game edition that they loved, whatever). In that context an ad that is intending to poke ‘harmless fun’ at those people could definitely be construed as offensive in context for those people, regardless of the actual intent.

Moth my man: it was established in the long ago that people either a. didn't then have the right to be upset or b. were big fat babies if they were. Either way, they should have shut up and gone back to the trough of their corporate overlords, like it, and thank certain posters for the privilege of being told the foregoing. Didn't you get the memo?

Liberty's Edge

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Moth my man: it was established in the long ago that people either a. didn't then have the right to be upset or b. were big fat babies if they were. Either way, they should have shut up and gone back to the trough of their corporate overlords, like it, and thank certain posters for the privilege of being told the foregoing. Didn't you get the memo?

Oh man, I missed something else?!?


Mothman wrote:
Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Moth my man: it was established in the long ago that people either a. didn't then have the right to be upset or b. were big fat babies if they were. Either way, they should have shut up and gone back to the trough of their corporate overlords, like it, and thank certain posters for the privilege of being told the foregoing. Didn't you get the memo?
Oh man, I missed something else?!?

You gotta learn to watch for the shark feeding-frenzy behavior!

Contributor

pres man wrote:
Russ Taylor wrote:
pres man wrote:
Yeah, having their contributors run around and tell people that were fine with 3.5 that they were incompetent. Great respect you contributors have there.
You've completely lost me with whatever you're referring to there.
And you don't even have enough respect to read the thread you are posting in. It keeps getting better. Respect, huh!

I have to admit I'm getting a bit baffled by it as well.

Scott took from my comment what I was trying to get at: It's not that that the 3.5 grappling rules are that bad (though I do think they are, and 4e and Pathfinder both did the right thing to revise them) as pointing out that an experienced DM would dismiss a broken or overcomplicated rule on the fly and come up with some logical ruling that could keep the flow of the game going.

This is a basic bit of GMing and it doesn't even go with bad game design. So you're running a fight and you suddenly find that the monster you've elaborately described is not in the Monster Manual or Bestiary you have access to. Do you immediately retcon it to being some monster you do have the stats for? No, you quickly invent a statblock and some hit points and at a certain point in the combat you announce "Why yes, the monster is dead." And if at some point your players remark "Wow, that manticore wasn't as tough as the ones in the book," you say, "Why yes, it was obviously weakened by the mad tortures it suffered during a week-long mad science fair sponsored by liches and the derro."

But getting back to the commercial, it showed three different eras of less than competent DMs, which doesn't prove much beyond bad or at very least inexperienced DMs appearing in every era.


The commercials did nothing but prove (if it ever needed it) that a person carries their thoughts of a product into the advertisement for it rather then the other way around.

Quote:

2 main reasons I've come across in my many discussions here and at the local game shops:

1. Paizo was much more diplomatic and respectful in their phrasing and word choice when they explained the change.
2. Paizo didn't completely change the basic structure of every single class and race, along with the many, many other changes 4E made all at once.
Quote:
Easy. Pathfinder has respect for what came before, instead of dropping spellplagues and innuendo on it

And yet this remains:

Both sides felt 3e grappling was unintuitive and un-fun to deal with. You praise one company for it while attack the other.

You are both bringing up side issues.

People on this thread have claimed that 4e attacked them by making light of 3e grappling and claiming that it was an insult to change it. At the same time, Paizo very clearly felt the same way WotC did, and merely changed things differently.

Again, while the changes both sides made differ, the philosophy behind the changes is the same. Both Paizo and WotC say many of the same problems in 3.5, but you're attacking one and praising the other for doing the same thing.

Liberty's Edge

ProfessorCirno wrote:

People on this thread have claimed that 4e attacked them by making light of 3e grappling and claiming that it was an insult to change it. At the same time, Paizo very clearly felt the same way WotC did, and merely changed things differently.

Again, while the changes both sides made differ, the philosophy behind the changes is the same. Both Paizo and WotC say many of the same problems in 3.5, but you're attacking one and praising the other for doing the same thing.

Well ... no ...

At the risk of speaking for other people and perhaps misinterpreting what they are saying or meaning, what I see is being said, in the main, is this:

Wotc said 3.5 grapple is too complicated and that folk who wanted to play a game that used it were foolish / outdated and changed it for 4e.

Paizo said that 3.5 grapple is too complicated and changed it for Pathfinder.

Whether Wotc actually said that, or meant it, or have been misinterpreted is another issue. But I don’t think people in this thread are criticising one company and giving another a free pass or praise for exactly the same thing. The issue is not the change it is how the need for change was presented.


Wow, so, like, over a hundred new posts went up since I left work at 5pm EST, and now I feel like I'm all bringin' up old stuff, but...

...I actually thought the "dragon poops on troll" commercial was kinda funny - and indeed, I liked most of the animated promo shorts WotC made for 4E. (Not so much the other one with Perkins and Co., though. Didn't really find either one offensive, per se, though I can see how some people might.)

Heck, even some of the people on RPG forums with whom I agree on a great many points could use a healthy dose of wyrm manure to cure themselves of their trollishness. (Trollocity? Trollitude? Darn this grammar.)

I guess any bad blood the dragon-poop dig might have stirred up in me is eclipsed by the fact that the game I love is still supported and vying for first place in the industry even as it ties D&D in sales. And the commercials, bad acting and all, are nowhere near as offensive as the boring first-party print adventures for 4E - at least I can watch them for free.

I just wish Mearls and his overlords at WotC would spit it out already and tell us what they plan to do with the game instead of taking us on this weekly walk down Memory Lane that may or may not be ramping up to another edition change. The whole thing smacks of pantomime.

But what do I know? I'm a papier-mache construct with a naughty rules-referential moniker! =]

Contributor

ProfessorCirno wrote:

The commercials did nothing but prove (if it ever needed it) that a person carries their thoughts of a product into the advertisement for it rather then the other way around.

Quote:

2 main reasons I've come across in my many discussions here and at the local game shops:

1. Paizo was much more diplomatic and respectful in their phrasing and word choice when they explained the change.
2. Paizo didn't completely change the basic structure of every single class and race, along with the many, many other changes 4E made all at once.
Quote:
Easy. Pathfinder has respect for what came before, instead of dropping spellplagues and innuendo on it

And yet this remains:

Both sides felt 3e grappling was unintuitive and un-fun to deal with. You praise one company for it while attack the other.

You are both bringing up side issues.

People on this thread have claimed that 4e attacked them by making light of 3e grappling and claiming that it was an insult to change it. At the same time, Paizo very clearly felt the same way WotC did, and merely changed things differently.

Again, while the changes both sides made differ, the philosophy behind the changes is the same. Both Paizo and WotC say many of the same problems in 3.5, but you're attacking one and praising the other for doing the same thing.

There's a difference between mocking a mistake and simply correcting it. WotC did the first, Paizo did the second.

But the insult was taken not just for mocking the rules of those editions but the players of those editions, depicting them as rubes and incompetents even beyond their dated clothing and bad period wigs.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
pres man wrote:
Russ Taylor wrote:
pres man wrote:
Yeah, having their contributors run around and tell people that were fine with 3.5 that they were incompetent. Great respect you contributors have there.
You've completely lost me with whatever you're referring to there.
And you don't even have enough respect to read the thread you are posting in. It keeps getting better. Respect, huh!

I have to admit I'm getting a bit baffled by it as well.

Scott took from my comment what I was trying to get at: It's not that that the 3.5 grappling rules are that bad (though I do think they are, and 4e and Pathfinder both did the right thing to revise them) as pointing out that an experienced DM would dismiss a broken or overcomplicated rule on the fly and come up with some logical ruling that could keep the flow of the game going.

So now the grappling rules are broken or overcomplicated?


I wonder who's gonna win.


It's funny when people have trouble grappling with basic distinctions.


Mothman wrote:
Whether Wotc actually said that, or meant it, or have been misinterpreted is another issue.

I think it's pretty clear that they didn't actually say that, since, y'know, they didn't actually say that. But sure, whether or not that's the point they were trying to get across can be a matter of debate. But really, I don't think WotC meant anything with the spot beyond trying to convince those watching it that things would be better under 4e than they were under 3e/2e/1e.

And, really, replace those with any product and the product line it replaces and you have every iterative product rollout, ever.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
Mothman wrote:
Whether Wotc actually said that, or meant it, or have been misinterpreted is another issue.

I think it's pretty clear that they didn't actually say that, since, y'know, they didn't actually say that. But sure, whether or not that's the point they were trying to get across can be a matter of debate. But really, I don't think WotC meant anything with the spot beyond trying to convince those watching it that things would be better under 4e than they were under 3e/2e/1e.

And, really, replace those with any product and the product line it replaces and you have every iterative product rollout, ever.

And honestly, saying that your new product is better than your previous products is a pretty good marketing strategy. Otherwise, why would people buy the new product?

Generally though, the strategy would be: ‘Our old product was good, but our new product is fantastic!’ Or just skip straight to: ‘Our new product is fantastic!’

A strategy of: ‘Well our old product was kind of crap in a lot of areas you know? I mean, we really screwed some things up back in the day. But now, well, our new product will be much better. Trust us.’ ... that seems a little counterproductive.

As a consumer of the old product I wouldn’t be insulted, but if I didn’t agree with the things they thought were bad, then I would see little point in getting the new product. If I did think they were bad, I might question whether a company that has by admission gotten so much wrong in the past is really going to get it right this time?

On the other hand I might be refreshingly pleased by their honesty and feel that a company that can admit to their past mistakes will be willing to try to change for the better.

Of course, this is the internet. Mostly people look for an excuse to be insulted, rather than refreshingly pleased.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
Uchawi wrote:

People read way to much into advertising, unless you have some secret insider information that explicitly states the intent was to do harm, which I doubt. But if you are looking for information to fuel your like or dislike of any product, then don't let me interfere.

I would rather talk to some friends, kick the tires, and decide if a product on its own merit, is worthy of a purchase.

Bingo.

I tend to agree with this, for the most part.

I remember being annoyed at some of the things that WotC was doing...the pdfs, Dragon and Dungeon, dropping OGL, etc. I can see that some people who were annoyed by some of these things might read more into WotC's marketing and advertising than might have been intended.

The thing is, to me, WotC's decisions around the time 4th Edition came out were perfectly reasonable from a business standpoint, if you simply just set aside the goodwill of the gaming community at large as being something completely trivial. At least, that's the way it seemed to me. They did a bunch of things that seemed designed at taking back control of the game, and ensuring that nobody else but WotC made money off of it, and forcing players to adopt the new edition by cutting off any support of the older editions. If they didn't value me as a customer, those were perfectly rational things to do.

I also remember looking forward to 4th edition, but I was hoping that it would be more of an extension of 3.5, with a bunch of fixes. I'd played (and been very impressed by) Star Wars Saga Edition, and I was hoping for something that would fit that mold.

I played 4th edition...sometimes concurrently with 3.5 campaigns, and I never particularly liked it.

But what WotC said never bother me. Rather, it was some of the things that they did that irked me.

Contributor

pres man wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
pres man wrote:
Russ Taylor wrote:
pres man wrote:
Yeah, having their contributors run around and tell people that were fine with 3.5 that they were incompetent. Great respect you contributors have there.
You've completely lost me with whatever you're referring to there.
And you don't even have enough respect to read the thread you are posting in. It keeps getting better. Respect, huh!

I have to admit I'm getting a bit baffled by it as well.

Scott took from my comment what I was trying to get at: It's not that that the 3.5 grappling rules are that bad (though I do think they are, and 4e and Pathfinder both did the right thing to revise them) as pointing out that an experienced DM would dismiss a broken or overcomplicated rule on the fly and come up with some logical ruling that could keep the flow of the game going.

So now the grappling rules are broken or overcomplicated?

Now?

Well, now the Pathfinder grappling rules seem to be working and relatively straightforward.

The 4e grappling rules? I really can't address that because I don't play 4e, my 4e books are many hundred miles away from my current location, and WotC has not deemed it meet to allow me to download PDFs of books I pre-ordered before publication (unlike Paizo, which has, so I can access any of those from my laptop).


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
The 4e grappling rules? I really can't address that because I don't play 4e, my 4e books are many hundred miles away from my current location, and WotC has not deemed it meet to allow me to download PDFs of books I pre-ordered before publication (unlike Paizo, which has, so I can access any of those from my laptop).

In case anyone was actually curious, grabbing (what grappling is called in 4e) is done by making a Strength attack vs. the target's Reflex. On a success, the target is grabbed. On a failure, it's not.

To escape, you choose to roll either Athletics or Acrobatics against the target's Fortitude or Reflex defense, respectively. On a success, you escape. On a failure, you don't.

Notably, I don't have my 4e books at hand, either. I do, however, have access to the Compendium. So, y'know, there's that.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
pres man wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
pres man wrote:
Russ Taylor wrote:
pres man wrote:
Yeah, having their contributors run around and tell people that were fine with 3.5 that they were incompetent. Great respect you contributors have there.
You've completely lost me with whatever you're referring to there.
And you don't even have enough respect to read the thread you are posting in. It keeps getting better. Respect, huh!

I have to admit I'm getting a bit baffled by it as well.

Scott took from my comment what I was trying to get at: It's not that that the 3.5 grappling rules are that bad (though I do think they are, and 4e and Pathfinder both did the right thing to revise them) as pointing out that an experienced DM would dismiss a broken or overcomplicated rule on the fly and come up with some logical ruling that could keep the flow of the game going.

So now the grappling rules are broken or overcomplicated?

Now?

Well, now the Pathfinder grappling rules seem to be working and relatively straightforward.

The 4e grappling rules? I really can't address that because I don't play 4e, my 4e books are many hundred miles away from my current location, and WotC has not deemed it meet to allow me to download PDFs of books I pre-ordered before publication (unlike Paizo, which has, so I can access any of those from my laptop).

Now as in, now you are claiming that the 3.5 grappling rules are broken or overcomplicated.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Scott Betts wrote:
And, really, replace those with any product and the product line it replaces and you have every iterative product rollout, ever.

Can you show me all the car commercials talking about how bad their old cars were?


Russ Taylor wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
And, really, replace those with any product and the product line it replaces and you have every iterative product rollout, ever.
Can you show me all the car commercials talking about how bad their old cars were?

I'm pretty sure dealers would throw a hissy-fit if manufacturers ever did this. The 2011 car is not designed or marketed to replace the 2010 car - it is not expected (or even hoped for) that those who purchased the 2010 car will decide to upgrade to the 2011 model; in this respect, car manufacturing can be seen as a gradient process.

This is much more akin to Dominos Pizza's recent pizza crust change. They actively marketed their product as "Geez, guys, our pizza crust used to taste pretty bad. We made it better."

Imagine if someone had reacted to that by saying "What the hell are you talking about?! I loved Dominos' old pizza crust! I'm offended that you'd suggest it's anything but oven-baked rainbows and unicorn flatulence! I will never purchase from Dominos again - not because I dislike their pizza, but because they dared insult their own crust!"

Wouldn't that person strike you as...out there?


A couple of points....some old...150 posts since I last checked...wow.

1) Actualy I thought those cartoons were the only highlight of the 4th ed marketing campaign(heck I can't think of any 3.5 or 4th ed player that I know personaly who did not think they were funny.) I mean I can laugh at myself. That is fine. No it was actualy reading the designers blogs...the 4th ed preview books...etc. Told me quickly this was not a the game I grew to love over 20+ plus years. I would have been fine with that I would wish them luck and move...but the cooment of slaughtering sacred cows to make hamburgers...and usch is highly offensive. Just think about it for a second. If you liked those sacred cows....what would you think about it? Sure I am willing to bet that they did not set out to insult people...but I really don't think they cared if people were insulted as they were hoping to get more people into the game.

2) Just my own little personal rule I have...if somebody says I gaved offense to them...I apologize first...and figure out what I said and say it in a better light. It is really simple....they could have said 'Sorry...things were badly worded...the game is moving in this direction we hope you enjoy it...if not we understand.' And I would not have zero problems with them...as would most reasonable people.

3) The 'edition wars' started waaaay before 4th ed was even in the planning stages. I remember it clearly...somebody would start a thread about x is broken...they would be shown how it is not really broken...or suggested house rules on how to fix it..etc. Often times it was the result of bad DMing or bad player. Those thread usually turned ugly. It bothers me that I see it starting here as well.

4) There is a huge amount of difference in what WotC/Hasbro did with 4th ed and what Pazio did with Pathfinder. Mostly WotC pretty much threw out 90% of the game and narrowed the focus of playstyle. Pazio looked at the complaints and thought how can we change them to work better and still have fans who never had those problems agree with the change. I think Pazio route(even though not alway successful) is 100% better and healthier for the community.

As a example...I love the 3.5 skill system. It had great depth and flexability to it...both 4th ed system and PF's are inferior to it( except the combing hide and move silently into stealth and spot and listen into perception...I thought they should have done that in 3rd...). But I get it is not for everyone...people in group did not like it and got bogged down in it..so I could live with a change. 4th ed threwq it out the window practicly and put in a system I hate. Pazio was more of a compromise...it means both I and the people in our group could enjoy the game more together.

5) Also on grapple...or any thing really...it was a problem in 3.5. Did I have those problems...not really....mostly because I killed any player who made a grappling focused character( note the player not the character ;) ). Kidding. But seriously...I have played something like 30+ game systems in my time...and I can't not think of any system where grappling works well...it is either very complex and very powerful(like 3.5...not I don't mind complex things so don't take that to mean I hate it)...or 4th ed where it is very simple...and completely unrealistic and nearly usseless to do...to Pazio...where they tried to struck a balance...so what a systems rules on grapple is pretty much meaningless to me in judging that system( Unless it is you know Lucha Libre).

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Scott Betts wrote:

I'm pretty sure dealers would throw a hissy-fit if manufacturers ever did this. The 2011 car is not designed or marketed to replace the 2010 car - it is not expected (or even hoped for) that those who purchased the 2010 car will decide to upgrade to the 2011 model; in this respect, car manufacturing can be seen as a gradient process.

This is much more akin to Dominos Pizza's recent pizza crust change. They actively marketed their product as "Geez, guys, our pizza crust used to taste pretty bad. We made it better."

Imagine if someone had reacted to that by saying "What the hell are you talking about?! I loved Dominos' old pizza crust! I'm offended that you'd suggest it's anything but oven-baked rainbows and unicorn flatulence!"

Wouldn't that person strike you as...out there?

Domino's ad campaign is highly atypical, and indicative of a damaged brand trying to revive itself. If that's how you'd characterize the state of 3.5E at the advent of 4E, I'd have to disagree.

Generally, any ad campaign based on "Try us! We're different!" implies the brand's image is trashed and they hope to reinvent/revive it.

Much more common to see "Now even better!", like Pizza Hut's mid-90s ads when they switched to fresh ingredients. Not a word about their pizza being kind of nasty before.

But it sounds like, based on this post, your position really is "Gosh, 3E sucked, but we did better this time!". Is that what you meant to convey?

To give you an example, if El Torito (a chain I eat at at times) marketed their Mexico City tacos with a "try it again, we listened to how bad it was and fixed it", and I tried them and didn't like them, I'd probably mail them a letter saying "Are you nuts? They were yummy before and you ruined them!"


Scott Betts wrote:

I'm pretty sure dealers would throw a hissy-fit if manufacturers ever did this. The 2011 car is not designed or marketed to replace the 2010 car - it is not expected (or even hoped for) that those who purchased the 2010 car will decide to upgrade to the 2011 model; in this respect, car manufacturing can be seen as a gradient process.

This is much more akin to Dominos Pizza's recent pizza crust change. They actively marketed their product as "Geez, guys, our pizza crust used to taste pretty bad. We made it better."

Imagine if someone had reacted to that by saying "What the hell are you talking about?! I loved Dominos' old pizza crust! I'm offended that you'd suggest it's anything but oven-baked rainbows and unicorn flatulence!"

Wouldn't that person strike you as...out there?

Well yeah...as everyone knows Domino old crust did suck. That is simply truth in advertisement...yeah I know that never happens.

Obviously WotC was wrong about 3.5 sucking as well I'll point to exhibit 1: Alot of people rejected 4th ed and stuck to 3.5....2) The success of Pazio's Pathfinder.

Also I like how asscoiate people who like saying they like 3.5 and willing to defend it....very interesting....are sure you just are not some 4th ed fan who just hate it that people dare not like 4th ed?

I mean i know you say you buy stuff from Pazio...and that you play Pathfinder...but really I have no way to prove this...and the more posts I read of yours...I can start to see what others are saying about you.


Russ Taylor wrote:
But it sounds like, based on this post, your position really is "Gosh, 3E sucked, but we did better this time!". Is that what you meant to convey?

Nope. I meant to illustrate that the sort of thing people are accusing WotC of doing with their ad campaign (insulting their own product) - whether or not they actually did it - is pretty much exactly what Dominos Pizza did. It's hardly unprecedented, and in fact that marketing campaign was widely seen as brilliant.

My point isn't that WotC did this. My point is that if people think WotC did this, and that it's reasonable to be offended, surely they must also believe that it's reasonable to be offended by Dominos' marketing campaign about their new crust.

Russ Taylor wrote:
To give you an example, if El Torito (a chain I eat at at times) marketed their Mexico City tacos with a "try it again, we listened to how bad it was and fixed it", and I tried them and didn't like them, I'd probably mail them a letter saying "Are you nuts? They were yummy before and you ruined them!"

Would you have ended that letter with, "And I'm offended that you'd even try to tell me it's better! You'll never get another cent from me again, no matter what you offer in the future!"? Because those lines, verbatim, are what quite a few people would have been totally cool saying to WotC during the 4e release (and some of them probably still want to).


Scott Betts wrote:
I'm pretty sure dealers would throw a hissy-fit if manufacturers ever did this. The 2011 car is not designed or marketed to replace the 2010 car - it is not expected (or even hoped for) that those who purchased the 2010 car will decide to upgrade to the 2011 model; in this respect, car manufacturing can be seen as a gradient process.

Reasonable time lurker....first time poster.

I know in my country this is pretty much how cars are advertised...

'This years new model Holden X(R)! Now with better...whatever...we put under the hood!'

It's also why my country has a 'sales' season, or "Last years run outs!" on the previous year's model of cars....

Huh, how about that, ya learn somthin' every day...

Much cheers to you and yours.


John Kretzer wrote:
Obviously WotC was wrong about 3.5 sucking as well I'll point to exhibit 1: Alot of people rejected 4th ed and stuck to 3.5....2) The success of Pazio's Pathfinder.

Because PF is 3.5. Oh yeah, it's not.


pres man wrote:
Because PF is 3.5. Oh yeah, its not.

But is kind of is, if you squint. (^_~)

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Scott Betts wrote:


Would you have ended that letter with, "And I'm offended that you'd even try to tell me it's better! You'll never get another cent from me again, no matter what you offer in the future!"? Because those lines, verbatim, are what quite a few people would have been totally cool saying to WotC during the 4e release (and some of them probably still want to).

If there ad campaign included mocking me for eating there and enjoying their food before, along with a host of other dumb actions, I'd tell them there's no chance I'd eat there again until they recanted in public, or otherwise demonstrated massive change.

The ad campaign's only one small part of how WotC caused their own problems.


John Kretzer wrote:
Well yeah...as everyone knows Domino old crust did suck. That is simply truth in advertisement...yeah I know that never happens.

You must acknowledge that it's possible for someone to have enjoyed Dominos' old crust more than their new crust, though. Taste is a matter of...well, taste. It's pretty inarguably subjective. Similarly, despite my firm opinion that grappling/grabbing is handled better in 4e than in 3.5, I must acknowledge that it is possible to have reasons for holding the opposite opinion.

So, really, saying "everyone knows their old crust sucked" doesn't really get you anywhere. I could just as easily say "everyone knows the old grappling rules sucked," and we'd both be wrong (to varying degrees).

John Kretzer wrote:
I mean i know you say you buy stuff from Pazio...and that you play Pathfinder...but really I have no way to prove this...and the more posts I read of yours...I can start to see what others are saying about you.

Haha, your suspicion is kind of adorable. "Others", however, are almost invariably those with the biggest beefs against WotC/4e. It'd be silly to let that get to me.

While I'm sure that others here could vouch for me in my stead (including a few I know in real life), I figured I'd take the opportunity to show off my latest Pathfinder bling (arrived on Saturday), just for you.


Russ Taylor wrote:
If there ad campaign included mocking me for eating there and enjoying their food before

Right, because WotC is all about laughing at people who played and enjoyed previous editions of the game. For instance, everyone who works there.

...waaaaaaait...

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Okay, the bling photo's really funny :) Good one.


pres man wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Obviously WotC was wrong about 3.5 sucking as well I'll point to exhibit 1: Alot of people rejected 4th ed and stuck to 3.5....2) The success of Pazio's Pathfinder.
Because PF is 3.5. Oh yeah, it's not.

Ok...mmm...it is a evolution(or if you want a devolution in your opinion) of the 3.5 system.


, wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I'm pretty sure dealers would throw a hissy-fit if manufacturers ever did this. The 2011 car is not designed or marketed to replace the 2010 car - it is not expected (or even hoped for) that those who purchased the 2010 car will decide to upgrade to the 2011 model; in this respect, car manufacturing can be seen as a gradient process.

Reasonable time lurker....first time poster.

I know in my country this is pretty much how cars are advertised...

'This years new model Holden X(R)! Now with better...whatever...we put under the hood!'

It's also why my country has a 'sales' season, or "Last years run outs!" on the previous year's model of cars....

Huh, how about that, ya learn somthin' every day...

Much cheers to you and yours.

The end-of-model-year-sales-event thing is to get rid of inventory that will quickly be seen as less desirable once the new model year vehicles arrive. But, again, they're not trying to sell cars to the people who bought a car last year; those people usually don't want a new one. Their target audience is people who have cars old enough that they might be able to convince those people to trade up. Because of that, there's no reason for them to compare the shortcomings of last year's car to the innovations of this year's car. Their target audience doesn't have any idea what last year's car's shortcomings were to begin with.


Scott Betts wrote:

Haha, your suspicion is kind of adorable. "Others", however, are almost invariably those with the biggest beefs against WotC/4e. It'd be silly to let that get to me.

While I'm sure that others here could vouch for me in my stead (including a few I know in real life), I figured I'd take the opportunity to show off my latest Pathfinder bling (arrived on Saturday), just for you.

Ok your Pathfinder cred is proven to me. I was probably reading to much in what you were writting as it comes of a bit demeaning at times...I apologize for it.

Also how about this...to get my point across.

A role-playing game requires a higher level of investment(not money) than a pizza. And more so than any book or movie. Because we creat the characters and the stories and the world(even when using published world such as the FR) they mean a whole lot more to us. Not talking about the creepy people who go too deep here...just normal. One of my favorite characters back in the day was a cleric who whorshipped a agiculture goddess.

Now take a line from one of the Preview books..(I'll paraphase as either I don't currently have it or it would take days to dig up). But it pretty much it said...We are not going to be detailing some types of gods because we feel it has no place in a adventurers live...like a god of agiculture.

Ok I know they have no idea about me from anybody else...so I don't think the line was meant as offensive to me personaly...I really did not take it that way. But I did take that as a nagative statement no need for a agiculture god...is a negative in that they are taking it out. I took two thing from this comment...

1) 4th ed was not a game for me...as I am being limited by other peoples dislike and likes...and the limits of THEIR imagination.

2) One of my favorite characters in their rather limited(it would seem) world view was not a hero...not worthy of being a adventurer...should not have existed.

Again no offense was intended...but it was there anyway. I can't trust these people.

On the other hand I can trust James Jacob...even though he has a unhealthy love for Lovecraft and Dinosaurus...because he also hates dwarves as written...but he did not change them because he knows their are plenty of fans who like them..and he does not want to leave them out o the game.

Anyway rather you find it offensive or not is really immaterial...as what is offensive is completely subjective. I can respect your opinion that it was not offensive to you. Why can't you respect that I and others were offended by it?


Scott Betts wrote:
The end-of-model-year-sales-event thing is to get rid of inventory that will quickly be seen as less desirable once the new model year vehicles arrive. But, again, they're not trying to sell cars to the people who bought a car last year; those people usually don't want a new one. Their target audience is people who have cars old enough that they might be able to convince those people to trade up. Because of that, there's no reason for them to compare the shortcomings of last year's car to the innovations of this year's car. Their target audience doesn't have any idea what last year's car's shortcomings were to begin with.

Side note tangent: since I am in the car bussiness...the end of year sells on models has nothing to do with less desireable...and all to do how fast cars devalue in price. They have to move that stock as quickly as possible before the the next year car(does not have to be a new model even) will make it obsolete in value as everyone will buy the current year car.

It is sorta like people who dig in the milk isle looking for the newest expiration date or why lots of product have the expiration date in code so people can't read it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:


While I'm sure that others here could vouch for me in my stead (including a few I know in real life), I figured I'd take the opportunity to show off my latest Pathfinder bling (arrived on Saturday), just for you.

*looks at photo*

*looks at avatar*

*back to photo*

*back to avatar*

Always fun to see the differences. :)

451 to 500 of 1,627 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Mearls pleading for unity All Messageboards