Mearls pleading for unity


Gamer Life General Discussion

701 to 750 of 1,627 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

I watched the ad and the last thing that came into my mind was wanting to buy minis. The first thing that came to mind was "what a bunch of morons" and wanting to tell them to use the damn index at the back of the book to look up where the grappling rules were. Otherwise nothing that offensive. If that is all that it takes for people to be offended than you must be really easy to offend. Kind of reminds me of an old issue of Dragon where they go mail from fans that were offended that they had a muscular male charatcer on the cover.


John Kretzer wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
pres man wrote:


Consider, if you went to a game at a local game story and it had been advertised to be PF. You get there with your PF game books, only to find out they are actually play 3e (not even 3.5). Would that give a little bit of frustration? I think if we are honest with ourselves we would agree it would. Does that mean you couldn't eventually tweak your character enough to play in the system? Sure you could, as I said they are closely related, but it is not the same system. Saying it is just creates unnecessary confusion.

Consider, if it had been advertised at be 3.5. And you showed up only to find out that they have a binder of houserules they expected you to follow.

Of course you would be frustrated. But the frustration is not because the systems are different. The frustration is because of poor communication.

You're basically saying that because I told you the wrong frequency, I'm no longer using a radio to talk to you.

Actualy what is he saying is that calling Pathfinder 3.5 or vice a versa is bad communication. That is his whole point and his frustration.

I don't mean to put words in pres man mouth...but that is atleast what I am getting from him. If I am wrong than I am sorry.

No, that is pretty much it, it is bad communication. It muddies the water unnecessarily.

I'm not sure why it is such an insult to say that PF is not 3.5. Do people feel like that is trying to invalidate it somehow, like Tri's comparison to calling 4e not D&D? Is it because so many people were like, "We are not giving up 3.5!" when 4e, and can't be honest with themselves and say that they are giving up 3.5 when they adopt PF? I just don't see where the problem with being clear is?

The fact that PF isn't 3.5 IS NOT AN INSULT. Heck, in many ways PF is superior to 3.5, I can admit that as 3.5 GM/player.

Should we call PF, True20? Conan RPG? No.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
pres man wrote:


No, that is pretty much it, it is bad communication. It muddies the water unnecessarily.

I'm not sure why it is such an insult to say that PF is not 3.5. Do people feel like that is trying to invalidate it somehow, like Tri's comparison to calling 4e not D&D? Is it because so many people were like, "We are not giving up 3.5!" when 4e, and can't be honest with themselves and say that they are giving up 3.5 when they adopt PF? I just don't see where the problem with being clear is?

The fact that PF isn't 3.5 IS NOT AN INSULT. Heck, in many ways PF is superior to 3.5, I can admit that as 3.5 GM/player.

Okay I get it. I dont totally agree with you as I dont see the distinction between 3.5 and Pathfinder as clearly cut and dry as you do, but I do see where youre coming from.

I think part of it (on my side at least) is that Pathfinder doesnt invalidate my mountains of 3.5 material like 4E does. I'm running a 3.5 AP right now (Curse of the Crimson Throne) with almost minimal conversion for the most part. In fact if I wanted to use any of my 3.5 adventures I could without much hassle, spells, feats and monster books likewise.

Like I said I appreciate you desiring clarity, but for me it's not that cut and dry. To be fair to your original point though, I probably should have clarified that I was running a Pathfinder game.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
pres man wrote:


No, that is pretty much it, it is bad communication. It muddies the water unnecessarily.

I'm not sure why it is such an insult to say that PF is not 3.5. Do people feel like that is trying to invalidate it somehow, like Tri's comparison to calling 4e not D&D? Is it because so many people were like, "We are not giving up 3.5!" when 4e, and can't be honest with themselves and say that they are giving up 3.5 when they adopt PF? I just don't see where the problem with being clear is?

The fact that PF isn't 3.5 IS NOT AN INSULT. Heck, in many ways PF is superior to 3.5, I can admit that as 3.5 GM/player.

Okay I get it. I dont totally agree with you as I dont see the distinction between 3.5 and Pathfinder as clearly cut and dry as you do, but I do see where youre coming from.

I think part of it (on my side at least) is that Pathfinder doesnt invalidate my mountains of 3.5 material like 4E does. I'm running a 3.5 AP right now (Curse of the Crimson Throne) with almost minimal conversion for the most part. In fact if I wanted to use any of my 3.5 adventures I could without much hassle, spells, feats and monster books likewise.

Like I said I appreciate you desiring clarity, but for me it's not that cut and dry. To be fair to your original point though, I probably should have clarified that I was running a Pathfinder game.

And what core books are you and your fellow players using? Anyone still using the 3.5 core books? What system are you really running?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
pres man wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
pres man wrote:


No, that is pretty much it, it is bad communication. It muddies the water unnecessarily.

I'm not sure why it is such an insult to say that PF is not 3.5. Do people feel like that is trying to invalidate it somehow, like Tri's comparison to calling 4e not D&D? Is it because so many people were like, "We are not giving up 3.5!" when 4e, and can't be honest with themselves and say that they are giving up 3.5 when they adopt PF? I just don't see where the problem with being clear is?

The fact that PF isn't 3.5 IS NOT AN INSULT. Heck, in many ways PF is superior to 3.5, I can admit that as 3.5 GM/player.

Okay I get it. I dont totally agree with you as I dont see the distinction between 3.5 and Pathfinder as clearly cut and dry as you do, but I do see where youre coming from.

I think part of it (on my side at least) is that Pathfinder doesnt invalidate my mountains of 3.5 material like 4E does. I'm running a 3.5 AP right now (Curse of the Crimson Throne) with almost minimal conversion for the most part. In fact if I wanted to use any of my 3.5 adventures I could without much hassle, spells, feats and monster books likewise.

Like I said I appreciate you desiring clarity, but for me it's not that cut and dry. To be fair to your original point though, I probably should have clarified that I was running a Pathfinder game.

And what core books are you and your fellow players using? Anyone still using the 3.5 core books? What system are you really running?

Read the last sentence in my reply Pres.


pres man wrote:

No, that is pretty much it, it is bad communication. It muddies the water unnecessarily.

I'm not sure why it is such an insult to say that PF is not 3.5. Do people feel like that is trying to invalidate it somehow, like Tri's comparison to calling 4e not D&D? Is it because so many people were like, "We are not giving up 3.5!" when 4e, and can't be honest with themselves and say that they are giving up 3.5 when they adopt PF? I just don't see where the problem with being clear is?

The fact that PF isn't 3.5 IS NOT AN INSULT. Heck, in many ways PF is superior to 3.5, I can admit that as 3.5 GM/player.

Should we call PF, True20? Conan RPG? No.

Ok...I think it has more to do with similiar to people calling 4th ed not D&D...it is a touchy subject. So I do think people are misunderstanding what you are saying just a little.


I'm sorry, I'm not trying to have a flame war here, but I on occasion use 3e stuff that I adjust in my 3.5 game, but I don't tell myself or my players that I am running 3e. I am adjusting that stuff to the edition I am playing.

EDIT: And I get that you get where I am coming from, and I appreciate that. It just saddens me that so many don't buy into it. I fear that the miscommunication will continue.


memorax wrote:
I watched the ad and the last thing that came into my mind was wanting to buy minis. The first thing that came to mind was "what a bunch of morons" and wanting to tell them to use the damn index at the back of the book to look up where the grappling rules were. Otherwise nothing that offensive. If that is all that it takes for people to be offended than you must be really easy to offend. Kind of reminds me of an old issue of Dragon where they go mail from fans that were offended that they had a muscular male charatcer on the cover.

I think the biggest problem is that people think of WotC as "Corporation" and Paizo as "People," when they're both the same business. Heck, the people in both get along and, as I recall, regularly play games (though typically AD&D).

The advertisement was never WotC making fun of you, it was them poking fun at themselves, because they played those games.

But because they are dehumanized for the sake of getting mad at them, suddenly the ad campaign becomes "the man" crushing down on them.

In other words, it's very much a martyr complex.


pres man wrote:
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to have a flame war here, but I on occasion use 3e stuff that I adjust in my 3.5 game, by I don't tell myself or my players that I am running 3e. I am adjusting that stuff to the edition I am playing.

That is ok...as I said previously...when I am mixing Pathfinder and 3.5 stuff I would advertise the game as 3.5/Pathfinder...or if it is pure Pathfinder I call it just Pathfinder. But that is just to be clear on what I am doing and what books are allowed.

But in casuel conversation with people I know I just call it D&D...they know me well enough to know what I mean by it. But for the purposes of annoucing a game you are running at the local gaming store or online or posts on a message board I agree with you clarifiction should be done.

Now stop argueing already we agree with you. ;)

Edit to respond to your edit: You can't convince everyone of everything...especialy over the internet.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
ProfessorCirno wrote:
memorax wrote:
I watched the ad and the last thing that came into my mind was wanting to buy minis. The first thing that came to mind was "what a bunch of morons" and wanting to tell them to use the damn index at the back of the book to look up where the grappling rules were. Otherwise nothing that offensive. If that is all that it takes for people to be offended than you must be really easy to offend. Kind of reminds me of an old issue of Dragon where they go mail from fans that were offended that they had a muscular male charatcer on the cover.

I think the biggest problem is that people think of WotC as "Corporation" and Paizo as "People," when they're both the same business. Heck, the people in both get along and, as I recall, regularly play games (though typically AD&D).

The advertisement was never WotC making fun of you, it was them poking fun at themselves, because they played those games.

But because they are dehumanized for the sake of getting mad at them, suddenly the ad campaign becomes "the man" crushing down on them.

In other words, it's very much a martyr complex.

I just think it is a bad ad. ;)


ProfessorCirno wrote:
memorax wrote:
I watched the ad and the last thing that came into my mind was wanting to buy minis. The first thing that came to mind was "what a bunch of morons" and wanting to tell them to use the damn index at the back of the book to look up where the grappling rules were. Otherwise nothing that offensive. If that is all that it takes for people to be offended than you must be really easy to offend. Kind of reminds me of an old issue of Dragon where they go mail from fans that were offended that they had a muscular male charatcer on the cover.

I think the biggest problem is that people think of WotC as "Corporation" and Paizo as "People," when they're both the same business. Heck, the people in both get along and, as I recall, regularly play games (though typically AD&D).

The advertisement was never WotC making fun of you, it was them poking fun at themselves, because they played those games.

But because they are dehumanized for the sake of getting mad at them, suddenly the ad campaign becomes "the man" crushing down on them.

In other words, it's very much a martyr complex.

Actualy well that might true for some...it does not fit me really. I just think WotC is being terribly run at this point...It really is not just those ads.

Also the problem is if the ad is some sort of 'in joke' as in that as you want us to intpert them as...than why who never ever had a issue like that in any of my games should trust these people to design a game? It really are bad ads because it is all based on the sterotypes that really ring hollow for a lot of gamers...and since they are sorta have been used in the past to deride us...and it was really badly done at that.

You might be right about a small mminority of people...but I really don't think generalize statements like fly.


I wonder how many people realize that at least some of the people in the ad were D&D game designers.


pres man wrote:
I wonder how many people realize that at least some of the people in the ad were D&D game designers.

Makes sense actually, given the backlash the ad got. If the ad was so perfect and justified, threads like this wouldn't exist. Articles like Mearls waving the white flag calling a truce wouldn't exist.

Meh, F'it. Pass the kool-aid, Mr. Jones.

Dark Archive

Not a fan of KoolAid.. I prefer Tang, personally ;)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

I feel like I'm watching a game of ping pong where there are two people playing side by side with two different balls and each one thinks they just scored the winning shot. Can we please let this thread die?

4e, you're pretty. Pathfinder, you're pretty. There's enough guys out there for each of you to get all the players you want without stealing each other's players. Now, let's all go back to hating the real enemy: White Wolf players.


James Martin wrote:
Now, let's all go back to hating the real enemy: White Wolf players.

But hating White Wolf players is like hating a negelected abused dog that keep liking it master anyway.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

John Kretzer wrote:
James Martin wrote:
Now, let's all go back to hating the real enemy: White Wolf players.
But hating White Wolf players is like hating a negelected abused dog that keep liking it master anyway.

True... How about RIFTS players? Or the asshats who wrote F.A.T.A.L.?


James Martin wrote:

I feel like I'm watching a game of ping pong where there are two people playing side by side with two different balls and each one thinks they just scored the winning shot. Can we please let this thread die?

4e, you're pretty. Pathfinder, you're pretty. There's enough guys out there for each of you to get all the players you want without stealing each other's players. Now, let's all go back to hating the real enemy: White Wolf players.

I actually don't want the thread to die - I'd like to continue discussing the content of Mearls' articles as they are published, because I really want to know where all this is going.

I do think that we could do without some of the extraneous arguments about commercials being offensive or not offensive, and what is or is not this system or that system, however. But that's me.


James Martin wrote:
Now, let's all go back to hating the real enemy: White Wolf players.

Wrong answer, some of us play that too. How about you just call them all "pretty" as you called it WW, palladium, all of em.


James Martin wrote:
I feel like I'm watching a game of ping pong where there are two people playing side by side with two different balls and each one thinks they just scored the winning shot. Can we please let this thread die?

Yeah, now that the thread is back to sucking, it can just die.

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Scott Betts wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:

This "What's the troll? The lint is just lint" crap - how does that relate to the game? I was not aware that 4e came with perfect miniatures for every single monster in their monster books. In fact, I think they stopped doing miniatures altogether.

So how will 4e fix that minotroll problem?

Again, missing the point of the ad spot - that the game evolves from edition to edition, and that the troll mini problem became a thing of the past when 2e hit and we started seeing minis being produced.

I was rather confused watching the video, since I started playing in 1981 and lead figures of many monsters, including trolls if we want to be specific, were readily and abundantly available even in the small-town area I lived in. Ral Partha made its own figs that were pretty much indistinguishable from "official" D&D monsters and characters, and Grenadier made officially licensed monster and character figures. I still have some today, including a troll and a minotaur, both of which I've had since 1981.

Given that, it seems silly to suggest that precise monster figures didn't exist for many, if not most, of your 1st Ed. Monster Manual monsters as far back as the late 70s. If the gamers had wanted to use the figures and felt like dropping the coin on figs, and possibly on paints if they wanted to paint them, they could have.

Many groups and players didn't. Some people liked it, some didn't, but it was never considered a prerequisite to play the game. We often didn't use figures or any kind of strict battlefield layout at all, or only in a very loose way to indicate position in a "marching order." Even if we did lay out the battlefield we might just as well use dice, pennies, or anything else to denote the orcs, skeletons, giant centipedes, or whatever we were fighting.

I think I have to side with the folks who take it as a bit of an insult that teenagers or young adults intelligent enough to read a D&D book would be incapable of maintaining a simple mental association (pennies are orcs, dice are wolves, the eraser is a troll, the clothespin is a minotaur, etc.), or that a question about "which one is the troll," while it could happen every now and then, would require more than about 2 seconds of game time to resolve and move forward.

It would have been interesting if they had shown the rest of the combat and shown the 1st Ed. combat and movement resolution, compared with the kinds of turn sequences, attacks of opportunity/opportunity attacks, carefully plotted tactical movement, mid-turn skill checks and interruptive actions, and the like that we see in all 3rd and 4th Ed games and their derivatives.

If we're talking about ease of play, taking 2 seconds once during combat to clarify what monster a mini represents seems like an astonishngly small price to pay in terms of game time investment versus the comparative slog of actions and modifiers in the more recent generations of D&D.


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
James Martin wrote:
I feel like I'm watching a game of ping pong where there are two people playing side by side with two different balls and each one thinks they just scored the winning shot. Can we please let this thread die?
Yeah, now that the thread is back to sucking, it can just die.

Bored Now.....

umm The Patriots are a better baseball team than the Bulls. ;-)

Liberty's Edge

The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
James Martin wrote:
I feel like I'm watching a game of ping pong where there are two people playing side by side with two different balls and each one thinks they just scored the winning shot. Can we please let this thread die?
Yeah, now that the thread is back to sucking, it can just die.

Bored Now.....

umm The Patriots are a better baseball team than the Bulls. ;-)

*waits patiently for the explosion*

hehehehe


Jason Nelson wrote:
I was rather confused watching the video, since I started playing in 1981 and lead figures of many monsters, including trolls if we want to be specific, were readily and abundantly available even in the small-town area I lived in.

Add to that the fact that they're not part of the game. They're sold separately. Not by wotc, either.

I could hunt down some of the earliest versions of D&D (those evolved from a war game, one of those games that, as far as I know, relies heavily on miniatures) and play it right now using the miniatures I own.

It's not something 4e has and other editions don't.

Neither are computer programmes to manage campaigns and characters.

But the ad implies otherwise. You could call it false advertising. Not the first time they did it.


Folk who say that people who worship Lamashtu are crazy are just being plain unkind. I mean I worship Lamashtu, and I'm not insane, am I? I'm one of her foremost paladins, going out and championing her causes, doing good stuff...


Aw, good...something else that doesn't exist.


Paladin of Lamashtu wrote:

Folk who say that people who worship Lamashtu are crazy are just being plain unkind. I mean I worship Lamashtu, and I'm not insane, am I? I'm one of her foremost paladins, going out and championing her causes, doing good stuff...

Oh no, it's that madwoman who worships Lamashtu and thinks she's some sort of heroine.

YES YOU ARE CRAZY, you silly airhead. Lamashtu is a creature of the Abyss and doesn't even have paladins. She's about as far from having paladins (except in the sense both figurative and personal with regard to those unfortunate enough to fall into her clutches) as it's possible to get.
Whereas noble Asmodeus is served by paladins.
Well technically.
As in SKR said so, even though James Jacobs has since said that the leakage of that information was an error and stated multiple times that he just wishes the whole issue would in fact just go away.
So we paladins of Asmodeus go quietly about our day to day business, with respect and dignity, and bide our time.
Because *one day* a catastrophe like Rovagug's rampage will happen again, and then Asmodeus will once more reign supreme, the only man, devil, or deity able to sort the mess out.
And he and we his faithful servants will be there, waiting, to receive our due acclaim when that day arrives.
Thank-you.


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Aw, good...something else that doesn't exist.

You're just grumpy, leafy, because that hot date I set up for you with a choke creeper didn't turn out too well... ;)


Sean K. Reynolds is related to Don Rickles? Who knew?


Paladin of Lamashtu wrote:

Folk who say that people who worship Lamashtu are crazy are just being plain unkind. I mean I worship Lamashtu, and I'm not insane, am I? I'm one of her foremost paladins, going out and championing her causes, doing good stuff...

You don't have to be crazy to worship the Llama Stu, but it helps.

So you're not mad. You're into monsters, then?


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Aw, good...something else that doesn't exist.

I'll just leave this here.


Paladin of Asmodeus wrote:


Because *one day* a catastrophe like Rovagug's rampage will happen again

Pathfinder to be sold to wizards and remade into a 4e setting? I must say I doubt that your sources are valid on that.

Probably your god deceiving you. After all, he's the father of all lies. And the uncle of all tricks!


Dragonsong wrote:
Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Aw, good...something else that doesn't exist.
I'll just leave this here.

I'm looking for my elemental instrument.

Have you seen my air guitar? It's pictured below (not to scale).


KaeYoss wrote:
Dragonsong wrote:
Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Aw, good...something else that doesn't exist.
I'll just leave this here.

I'm looking for my elemental instrument.

Have you seen my air guitar? It's pictured below (not to scale).

Ohh good i was worried how you misplaced something so big!

Senior Designer

cibet44 wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
cibet44 wrote:
Sorry, but being lead designer of 4th ed means he green lit pg 115 of the 4E PHB. A clear dig at Pathfinder.

Uh... no. Just no.

Just because there's a Paragon Path called the Pathfinder doesn't mean that it was a dig at the PFRPG. I bet you think that 20th Century Fox and Nissan are ripping off of the game, too.

PHB1 PG:115

Pathfinder Exploits
Wrong Step Pathfinder Attack 11
Act Together Pathfinder Utility 12

To me that's a jab. Clear and simple. No tin foil hat required.

Pathfinder existed as a brand at the time and the writing on the wall was pretty clear Paizo was not jumping on the 4E wagon. No, the PFRPG did not exist yet, but Paizo was continuing on with 3E-OGL work until they sorted out their strategy which became the PFRPG.

As a guy who worked on the 4e Player's Handbook, I can tell you that was not a jab. It was just an unhappy coincidence that was designed (and named) well before the Pathfinder RPG was announced. I just wish I had the foresight to change the name of that paragon path and the powers before the 4e PH saw print.

Heck, if I had a time machine, I would go back in time, and I'm sure I would have no problem convincing the 4e design team to change it, after they got over the shock of seeing two of me in the same meeting room.


Jason Nelson wrote:
I think I have to side with the folks who take it as a bit of an insult

No. You don't.

It was a cute commercial showing D&D changing in each era with a funny stereotype about the era itself in each one, showcasing that one of the main things D&D has done is change while keeping the same heart.

It was not in any way insulting.

Unless that's what you brought into it.

Again, the entire commercial was tongue in cheek aimed at themselves. Mearls runs a weekly AD&D game for crying out loud, he was the target of the joke.

Liberty's Edge

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

As a guy who worked on the 4e Player's Handbook, I can tell you that was not a jab. It was just an unhappy coincidence that was designed (and named) well before the Pathfinder RPG was announced. I just wish I had the foresight to change the name of that paragon path and the powers before the 4e PH saw print.

Heck, if I had a time machine, I would go back in time, and I'm sure I would have no problem convincing the 4e design team to change it, after they got over the shock of seeing two of me in the same meeting room.

Actually Stephen, there would be no point in doing that – if people want to see conspiracy theories, they will see them. If people want to be insulted by something that if it was intentional would have been kind of funny, they will.

So give me your time machine instead man, I’ll think of something good to do with it.

Actually, nah. I'd probably just end up becoming my own great-grandfather or something.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
Jason Nelson wrote:
I think I have to side with the folks who take it as a bit of an insult

No. You don't.

It was a cute commercial showing D&D changing in each era with a funny stereotype about the era itself in each one, showcasing that one of the main things D&D has done is change while keeping the same heart.

It was not in any way insulting.

Unless that's what you brought into it.

Again, the entire commercial was tongue in cheek aimed at themselves. Mearls runs a weekly AD&D game for crying out loud, he was the target of the joke.

Parody is rarely the best way to go about stating a point, even when it's self parody. The line between parody and mockery is just too close to call unilaterally.

Dark Archive

ProfessorCirno wrote:
Jason Nelson wrote:
I think I have to side with the folks who take it as a bit of an insult

No. You don't.

It was a cute commercial showing D&D changing in each era with a funny stereotype about the era itself in each one, showcasing that one of the main things D&D has done is change while keeping the same heart.

It was not in any way insulting.

Unless that's what you brought into it.

Again, the entire commercial was tongue in cheek aimed at themselves. Mearls runs a weekly AD&D game for crying out loud, he was the target of the joke.

What I find funny someone else might find offensive. That doesn't mean they are wrong for feeling insulted by something I find funny. Nor does it mean to them it wasn't really insulting.

I didn't find that video insulting either, lame yes, insulting no. But I get my views are not the same as everyone's. So I accept some people might have been insulted by it and I understand their reasons even if I disagree with them. You should try the same and respect their point of view and don't claim it's their fault for being insulted, which is what your implying.

Senior Designer

Mothman wrote:

Actually Stephen, there would be no point in doing that – if people want to see conspiracy theories, they will see them. If people want to be insulted by something that if it was intentional would have been kind of funny, they will.

So give me your time machine instead man, I’ll think of something good to do with it.

Actually, nah. I'd probably just end up becoming my own great-grandfather or something.

Good point. There are much better things to do with a time machine. I don't know about the whole becoming one's own great-grandfather thing...sounds a little too kinky for my tastes. ;)


Mothman wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

As a guy who worked on the 4e Player's Handbook, I can tell you that was not a jab. It was just an unhappy coincidence that was designed (and named) well before the Pathfinder RPG was announced. I just wish I had the foresight to change the name of that paragon path and the powers before the 4e PH saw print.

Heck, if I had a time machine, I would go back in time, and I'm sure I would have no problem convincing the 4e design team to change it, after they got over the shock of seeing two of me in the same meeting room.

Actually Stephen, there would be no point in doing that – if people want to see conspiracy theories, they will see them. If people want to be insulted by something that if it was intentional would have been kind of funny, they will.

So give me your time machine instead man, I’ll think of something good to do with it.

Actually, nah. I'd probably just end up becoming my own great-grandfather or something.

*shudder*


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
cibet44 wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
cibet44 wrote:
Sorry, but being lead designer of 4th ed means he green lit pg 115 of the 4E PHB. A clear dig at Pathfinder.

Uh... no. Just no.

Just because there's a Paragon Path called the Pathfinder doesn't mean that it was a dig at the PFRPG. I bet you think that 20th Century Fox and Nissan are ripping off of the game, too.

PHB1 PG:115

Pathfinder Exploits
Wrong Step Pathfinder Attack 11
Act Together Pathfinder Utility 12

To me that's a jab. Clear and simple. No tin foil hat required.

Pathfinder existed as a brand at the time and the writing on the wall was pretty clear Paizo was not jumping on the 4E wagon. No, the PFRPG did not exist yet, but Paizo was continuing on with 3E-OGL work until they sorted out their strategy which became the PFRPG.

As a guy who worked on the 4e Player's Handbook, I can tell you that was not a jab. It was just an unhappy coincidence that was designed (and named) well before the Pathfinder RPG was announced. I just wish I had the foresight to change the name of that paragon path and the powers before the 4e PH saw print.

Heck, if I had a time machine, I would go back in time, and I'm sure I would have no problem convincing the 4e design team to change it, after they got over the shock of seeing two of me in the same meeting room.

Thanks. This means a lot to me, actually.


Mothman wrote:
Actually, nah. I'd probably just end up becoming my own great-grandfather or something.

Now I feel like your avatar should be Fry from Futurama as you have mentioned "doing the nasty in the pasty."


People involved in the killing of true D&D got a lot of nerve showing their face around here.

Spoiler:
Just kidding. =D

Senior Designer

John "Don't Call Me Ashe" Booth wrote:

People involved in the killing of true D&D got a lot of nerve showing their face around here.

** spoiler omitted **

Hey, watch it, bub! ;)

The Exchange

Power Word Unzip wrote:

I actually don't want the thread to die - I'd like to continue discussing the content of Mearls' articles as they are published, because I really want to know where all this is going.

I do think that we could do without some of the extraneous arguments about commercials being offensive or not offensive, and what is or is not this system or that system, however. But that's me.

Such endearing naivety.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
pres man wrote:
I'm not sure why it is such an insult to say that PF is not 3.5.

Why does saying PF IS 3.5 cause you to "grind teeth in forced smile"? If it's not an insult to say it is not 3.5, is it an insult to say it is?


Dragonsong wrote:
Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Aw, good...something else that doesn't exist.
I'll just leave this here.

I see you haven't met some of my friends. ::Makes a summoning circle out of Bella Sara cards::


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Heck, if I had a time machine, I would go back in time, and I'm sure I would have no problem convincing the 4e design team to change it, after they got over the shock of seeing two of me in the same meeting room.

I'm still kind of getting used to seeing just ONE of you around, so I can only imagine.

701 to 750 of 1,627 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Mearls pleading for unity All Messageboards