Mearls pleading for unity


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 1,627 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Mr. Mearls postulating on the history of D&D and trying to unify the D&D audience. Quite a laugh-er.

"What we forget, though, is that the path to our future stretches back through our past."

More like what HE forgot while designing 4th edition. I'm glad those at Paizo remembered for him.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

cibet44, thank you for posting that.

I am saddened that even a call to recognize the connections and shared history of all of the iterations of the D&D game, provokes that kind of hostility.


I agree with what he said: They may not all be my favourites, but they're still all D&D (and that includes Pathfinder, True20, etc. in my book).

Dark Archive

I thought it was pretty well said and I agree with him. I think he is just saying, like what you like and respect others like what they like. In the end we are all enjoying the same dream.

Dark Archive

Hmm I started this very topic on this forum two days ago but I guess you missed it cibet.

Legends of Editions Past.

The so called editions wars are thankfully (mostly) over and behind us.

Having both D&D and Pathfinder as options is good for the whole industry.

Let's embrace our shared gaming past and look forward to our gaming future.

I'll keep an eye on Mr. Mearl's column, for I really wonder where he thinks D&D is headed

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

Dark_Mistress wrote:
I thought it was pretty well said and I agree with him. I think he is just saying, like what you like and respect others like what they like. In the end we are all enjoying the same dream.

I agree with him, I just rather wish WotC had embraced this philosophy a few years ago, instead of fueling the edition wars with their terrible marketing campaigns...


James Martin wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:
I thought it was pretty well said and I agree with him. I think he is just saying, like what you like and respect others like what they like. In the end we are all enjoying the same dream.
I agree with him, I just rather wish WotC had embraced this philosophy a few years ago, instead of fueling the edition wars with their terrible marketing campaigns...

Indeed. I will never play a 4th Ed game because of their poor marketing practices.

Liberty's Edge

I like what Mike said. Edition wars be damned, we are all gamers! There are still hardcores out there that claim that only 1st edition is true D&D. When I first started playing 3rd edition I commented, "It isn't D&D, I don't know what it is, but I like it." I am sure some 4th edition players felt the same way, and now that is their D&D. I have a friend that only plays 2nd edition, and I still like him. We are all sitting down to play a game that most people in our respective societies (there is an international membership here) simply don't understand. To pull our few small communities apart over something like this seems almost sad to me. I agree that WotC's marketing plan is awful, and I will never buy their games again because of that. But if there is a 4th edition game open at a convention, who would really feel betrayed if I sat down to play? It isn't going away, as much as many here would like it to, so can we develop a little bit of compassion for those who play 4th edition?
As an aside--I buy the crap out of some Pathfinder.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I will never play a 4E game because I played it and didn't enjoy it. :P


James Martin wrote:
I agree with him, I just rather wish WotC had embraced this philosophy a few years ago, instead of fueling the edition wars with their terrible marketing campaigns...

+1.

With every edition there was edition wars...I can see a basic D&D player saying AD&D is broken because now 'you can be a elf and a fighter?!?!'

Though mostly it has been localized to gaming stores and groups.

I heard there was edition wars on the WotC site...but I was not there so I don't know how bad it got.

But reading those previews books....it was like they were saying "Your playing styles sucks so you are going to completely ignore it."

The game is meh...not my style....but the marketing campaign...Worst one ever.

Personaly WotC will have to be make the first move before I can forgive them.


I dig 4th ed. I dig pathfinder.

I also dig cthulhu, rolemaster, earthdawn, and fudge.

I also like what Mearls is saying here. We all enjoy tabletop, thought for different reasons. The adversarial nonsense directed at people because they play differently, don't share your view, or prefer rolling a d100 or 2d8 instead of a d20 is ridiculous, and it's still ongoing.

"More like what HE forgot while designing 4th edition. I'm glad those at Paizo remembered for him."

Holding that kind of animosity for someone who put together a game he hopes people will enjoy playing makes me sad.


Sorry, but being lead designer of 4th ed means he green lit pg 115 of the 4E PHB. A clear dig at Pathfinder. You don't get to call for gamer unity when your very design and promotion is what fractured the community to begin with. If 4E were a raging success and Pathfinder an abject failure Mr Mearls would not be calling for gamer unity, I'm sure.


I'm not really sure why this article engenders any anger. 4th Edition is what it is, Pathfinder is what it is. I prefer Pathfinder, but if I had the time and someone I knew as a good GM was running it, I might still play in a 4E game.

I might also play in a Call of Cthulhu, Mutants and Masterminds, or Savage Worlds game.

I'm pretty sure the time to move on from all of this was a while ago. I wish Mearls all the best with this column.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

cibet44 wrote:
You don't get to call for gamer unity when your very design and promotion is what fractured the community to begin with.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Runequest split the hobby, and that the hardcover AD&D books split the D&D fan base back in 1979. If not, then publishing the BECMI version of the game at the same time as AD&D certainly split the fan base.

To suggest that someone "doesn't get to" call for civility, fellowship, and mutual enjoyment of the hobby is a very sad claim to make.

cibet44 wrote:
If 4E were a raging success and Pathfinder an abject failure Mr Mearls would not be calling for gamer unity, I'm sure.

When 3rd Edition was a terrific success, Wizards released the OGL, inviting other game companies to unify behind the d20 game mechanics.


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. You don't get to call for gamer unity when your very design and promotion is what fractured the community to begin with. If 4E were a raging success and Pathfinder an abject failure Mr Mearls would not be calling for gamer unity, I'm sure.

To be fair Mr. Mearls was not the lead designer back during the PhB came out. You are talking about PhB1 right?

What was on that page? Curious.

And I think you are right with the last sentence....though I think it is more of WotC trying to do it than Mr. Mearls who I understand is a pretty decent guy...which would be a reason to use him as the point man.


cibet44 wrote:
Sorry, but being lead designer of 4th ed means he green lit pg 115 of the 4E PHB.

Wat.

And no, I've read the page. Because I own the book. The wat is just literally that interpretation. This went from generic angle to tinfoil hat country very fast.


John Kretzer wrote:


What was on that page? Curious.

115 is one of the Ranger advancement path options. Called "Pathfinder." Clearly that can only mean this system, as pathfinder has no other reference.

Anywhere.

Ever.

/trollface


I think, personally, if Wizards didn't hoard all their toys (i.e. game mechanics), I would feel better about playing 4e. Somewhat. Although I'm getting back at them for being so selfish with their best ideas.

The reason why I don't like 4th is because I GMed a short lived campaign. I felt pidgeon-holed. Simple as that. They say it makes DMing easier, but it doesn't. In my 4e experience, DMing was HARDER for me.

You can't make a character based off of Samson or Hercules without some player yelling at you for making the NPC overpowered. :p

-----------

Where's the mythic love?

The Exchange

Phneri wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:


What was on that page? Curious.

115 is one of the Ranger advancement path options. Called "Pathfinder." Clearly that can only mean this system, as pathfinder has no other reference.

Anywhere.

Ever.

/trollface

Yes. Although it's actually on p114. But, to be fair to cibet44, it does say, and I quote, "Pathfinder sucks! You all suck! Edition wars blah blah blah! Suck suck suck!"

(Please note: quote may not be entirely accurate.)

The Exchange

Anyway, I love it when Mearls pleads.


cibet44 wrote:

Mr. Mearls postulating on the history of D&D and trying to unify the D&D audience. Quite a laugh-er.

"What we forget, though, is that the path to our future stretches back through our past."

More like what HE forgot while designing 4th edition. I'm glad those at Paizo remembered for him.

Preach on, brother. Sharpen the pitchforks and light the torches!

There will be blood...


Actually, the only way we can get gamer unity is if everyone everywhere agrees to disagree on the rules of the games we play and just promise to discuss them in a civil manner.

Then play.


I read this column when it went live last week, and while I appreciate the sentiment, I guess I don't really see the purpose of it in the context of where things stand with the the game today.

For one thing, Mearls basically ignored his own audience by choosing to address the past in this article, rather than the future. 4th Edition as it exists seems to be languishing in some sort of half-alive state - to judge by the marketing materials WotC is pushing out, there's nothing majorly excited being planned for release in the near future, and hasn't been anything truly groundbreaking or notable for arguably the last year. I like the Essentials product lines, for the most part, but those too are largely retreads of ground they've already covered.

4th Edition as a system has gotten a lot of heat for being too much of one thing and not enough of another (and those things vary depending on who you talk to), but I really believe that if you look at the system objectively, there's a lot of good to be had in its core mechanics.

What is NOT good is the fluff and the quality of the supporting products. Leaving aside the abysmal quality of their digital tools suite and the perpetual engine of disappointment that is DDi, there still seems to be a severe lack of innovation that stirs excitement among 4E players in terms of settings and adventures.

The reinterpretation of the Realms was almost universally poorly received, even by players who acknowledged that it was time for Faerun to get a facelift. Dark Sun and Eberron still seem to have their fans, but neither of those could be classified as original works derived from 4E's development; they are really just adaptations of what has come before.

I have yet to see a WotC-published 4E adventure that makes me go, "Wow, I wanna run THAT." About the closest anything has come to it is the re-imagining of Tomb of Horrors, but even that is so limited by the amount of splat you have to own to effectively play it. One encounter called for THREE callers in darkness miniatures. Most collectors I know are lucky to have one or two, let alone three. It starts to feel like these products aren't made just for their own sake, but as part of the sales engine that will force players to go out and spend more money on additional products.

It'd be great to see a 3PP, if not WotC themselves, come up with something really exciting like an innovative new setting or a mega-adventure that would make naysayers want to try 4E - Courts of the Shadow Fey seems to be the closest thing to that right now, actually. But until that happens, talk of "the future" from Mearls comes across as empty lip service and marketing hype, because there just doesn't seem to BE any future for 4E.

In conclusion, I like the system just fine - it's the damn company that keeps alienating and patronizing its customers and running its brand into the ground that I can't stand. =]


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I will never play a 4E game again because I played it and didn't enjoy it. :P

There, fixed that for you... :P


Power Word Unzip wrote:
In conclusion, I like the system just fine - it's the damn company that keeps alienating and patronizing its customers and running its brand into the ground that I can't stand. =]

This is it, in a nutshell.

In the past of posted in WotC's defense because of the sheer amount of crazy is some of the accusations I've seen made against WotC. They have, however, bungled their relationship with their customers rather spectacularly in the last few years. Certainly to an extent far beyond any I'd ever imagined possible.


"Whether you play the original game published in 1974, AD&D in any of its forms, 3rd Edition and its descendents, or 4th Edition, at the end of the day you’re playing D&D. D&D is what we make of it, and by "we" I mean the DMs, the players, the readers, the bloggers—everyone who has picked up a d20 and ventured into a dungeon."

Well, I don't play D&D. I play Pathfinder. I'm not a DM. I'm a GM.

I might add that I'm not playing D&D because wotc4e thought that sharing was bad and tried to take back the OGL, which is one of the greatest things ever done with or for D&D (done by what was basically wotc3e - and some of these people are with Paizo now).

I'm not playing D&D because they changed the game beyond recognition.

I'm not playing D&D because they basically set the support for the version of D&D I liked best to negative.

I'm not playing D&D because they killed my then favourite campaign world.

I'm not playing D&D because wotc4e pulled the license for Dragon and Dungeon magazine, forcing Paizo to do something else. That something else proved to be a killion times better than the alternative (at least to me).

Yes, yes, Paizo's high quality and genuine dedication to the hobby, as hobbyists, also plays a huge role in why Pathfinder is the only "D&D" for me now. Yet had wotc4e not reacted the way they did again and again, Paizo might still support D&D instead of doing Pathfinder, and I might still be willing to give wotc4e money.

I'm not saying that it's wrong to play 4e, or to enjoy it. Or to play both 4e and Pathfinder. I'm not saying it's stupid to play 4e or anything.

All I'm saying is that it will take a miracle for me to give them money again or play their stuff. And talking about unity and mentioning Gygax and Arneson by name doesn't even come close.


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.

I'm pretty sure that Pathfinder (as an RPG) didn't exist at the time that the 4e PHB was written, so I'm not sure that's even possible.

Sovereign Court

Wizards of the Coasts thoughtless marketing practices, and their desire to serve the bottom line profit amount to both greed and incompetence in my book, and is the view of roughly the last 27 gamers I spoke with. A great iron curtain descends down from the annual lay-offs, to the misleading statements made at GenCon 2008 (see YouTube) for a list of unfulfilled promises, to an array of m4rketing splat governed by an iron-clad GSL whos tight legalities attempted to shut down the Open Game Movement over the past years. It is a matter of business fact that the OGL given in perpetuity, is the document wotc moved away from, and drew "first blood" in this very divisive plan.

The idea to call gamers to action and unity by invoking Gygax is a fine one, but Mearls imho has lost this privelege, just as I would not trust Slavicsec, Mearls nor Perkins as spokespersons for gaming unity - they are keenly responsible for our division, and I understand those like the OP who would say that Mearls' statements appear dishonest, given his involvement in bringing Magic The Gathering and Video Game logic into Dungeons & Dragons.

The damage done by so-called business decisions over these years will not be "smoothed-over" by an insincere call for unity. In fact, as a point of history, the act of out-producing OGL material in the industry is the equivalent of a crime against the gaming community. The countless small third party publishers shut down because of 4e alone, was itself a hostile coup as wotc attempted to reign in third party publishers under their control once again.

A deep appreciation is felt by countless gamers for Erik Mona who led the charge with his article/thread, "4e, PAIZO IS STILL UNDECIDED". Through his commission of Jason Bulmahn to flesh out and deliver Pathfinder RPG from Oct08-09, he became the hier to the gygaxian legacy, NOT Mearls. For those of us who followed every step the wotc made in those days, we can never forget how hurtful it felt to have our commonalities under the OGL ripped asunder by wotc, as the game was converted toward so-called non-backward compatibility.

If Mearls wishes to speak about history, have him look at the list of those fired from wotc each Thanksgiving since 2008. Perhaps Mearls feels a bit alone there in his ivory tower, perhaps sad that he was the right hand of marketing greed. And if not, perhaps he misses those of us who continued to play Dungeons & Dragons via Pathfinder RPG without him, or wotci's infamous brand name.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Readerbreeder wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I will never play a 4E game again because I played it and didn't enjoy it. :P
There, fixed that for you... :P

You're not the Stuffy Grammarian!


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:


Yes. Although it's actually on p114.

That was the "Pathfinder" option with the "Wrong Step" power, right?

Paizo's counter strike was funnier! ;-)

Dark Archive

Regardless how you might feel about 4e or WotC(which is a company I am not fond of in the slightest) to lay most of the blame on Mearls is hardly fair. He wasn't in charge early on, is his vision one of the key parts of 4e game? Sure but the game wasn't what caused problems, it was the PR by WotC which i seriously doubt Mearls had anything at all to do with. I imagine he is like most game designers and he is a gamer and hobbist first and game designer second. So i don't blame him for wanting to see unity. For all we know he is as bothered by the WotC PR as some of us are.

As for the Pathfinder comment in the core book, yeah it was a jab. But if memory serves paizo people and wotc people are friends, so it was likely to them meant as a friendly jab between friendly rivals than something mean spirited.

The Exchange

KaeYoss wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:


Yes. Although it's actually on p114.

That was the "Pathfinder" option with the "Wrong Step" power, right?

Paizo's counter strike was funnier! ;-)

I did wonder if the OP was being subtle. But then I thought, "Nah!"

And yes, I don't think Pathfinder existed as a system then. Pathfinder did exist at the time as a line of modules, but I don't suppose the rage in WotC was sufficient to get them to diss them. And, I think, the term "Pathfinder" means scout, which is more or less what the Paragon Path in question does, and the term existed way before 4e, or 3e, or indeed 2e and 1e.

I'm happy if people play what they want. I play both 4e and PF. Both are cool, and different, and that is cool. WotC didn't cover themselves in glory back then, but it was back then so raking it over for the umpteenth time is a bit of a waste of gaming time.

Liberty's Edge

John Kretzer wrote:
The game is meh...not my style....but the marketing campaign...Worst one ever.

That about sums it up. Total agreement.

Liberty's Edge

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.

Liberty's Edge

KaeYoss wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:


Yes. Although it's actually on p114.

That was the "Pathfinder" option with the "Wrong Step" power, right?

Paizo's counter strike was funnier! ;-)

What was the counter strike?


The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:


Yes. Although it's actually on p114.

That was the "Pathfinder" option with the "Wrong Step" power, right?

Paizo's counter strike was funnier! ;-)

What was the counter strike?

I'm curious about this as well.


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.

Dark Archive

Maybe in stead of unity Mearls should be calling on the WotC 4e Faithful to rally to him. From their they would work night and day crafting weapons and armor, so they could march on Paizo. Then paizo would be forced to call on their faithful to rally to their defense. We could build walls around Paizo and fight off the hordes of WotC. It would be a truly epic battle of geekdom, the streets would run rainbow colored with dice.


Dark_Mistress wrote:
Maybe in stead of unity Mearls should be calling on the WotC 4e Faithful to rally to him. From their they would work night and day crafting weapons and armor, so they could march on Paizo. Then paizo would be forced to call on their faithful to rally to their defense. We could build walls around Paizo and fight off the hordes of WotC. It would be a truly epic battle of geekdom, the streets would run rainbow colored with dice.

That would be a funny scene.

But what would be great if Mike Mearles understood what really is behind the Edition Wars or the RPG wars.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

The Pathfinder RPG Alpha documents were out in April, D&D 4th Ed. launched in August. Plenty of time for that little dig to be added.

The retort came in Shadows in the Sky, the first volume of the Second Darkness AP. A minor crime lord running the "Cheat the Devil! Take His Gold!" tournament has wait-staff dressed as succubi. Even though succubi aren't devils. Which he is to stupid to know and wouldn't care even if told.


cibet44 wrote:


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.

Sorry, but that's way too far into conspiracy-theory land for me. It might have been meant as a fun "gotcha" type jab, but not as a "haha, you suck" thing. Probably it wasn't meant as anything.


Vigil wrote:

The Pathfinder RPG Alpha documents were out in April, D&D 4th Ed. launched in August. Plenty of time for that little dig to be added.

The retort came in Shadows in the Sky, the first volume of the Second Darkness AP. A minor crime lord running the "Cheat the Devil! Take His Gold!" tournament has wait-staff dressed as succubi. Even though succubi aren't devils. Which he is to stupid to know and wouldn't care even if told.

I thought the first jab by Pazio was the Rise of the Runelords(I think) with the evil wizards who live on the coast?

Be that it is we don't know how well the WotC staff gets along with the Pazio staff...these could be just friendly jabs...or just somewhat friendly ribbing between rivals. Than again it could be that they really hate each other...and pray for Deathmatches between each other...


John Kretzer wrote:
Be that it is we don't know how well the WotC staff gets along with the Pazio staff...these could be just friendly jabs...or just somewhat friendly ribbing between rivals. Than again it could be that they really hate each other...and pray for Deathmatches between each other...

Clearly, the edition wars should be resolved the way our friends in the WWE solve their most epic disputes: with a bra and panties match, in a big vat of blue Jell-o.

Round One: SKR vs. Perkins.


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. You don't get to call for gamer unity when your very design and promotion is what fractured the community to begin with. If 4E were a raging success and Pathfinder an abject failure Mr Mearls would not be calling for gamer unity, I'm sure.

Wait, but the Pathfinder is the one getting his opponent to "step unwittingly into your trap, and you catch him by surprise with a sudden, paralyzing thrust." So, WotC is implying that 4e will screw up and Pathfinder will take advantage of it?


Wow.

What about the WotC dev on the grassy Gnoll?


ghettowedge 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. You don't get to call for gamer unity when your very design and promotion is what fractured the community to begin with. If 4E were a raging success and Pathfinder an abject failure Mr Mearls would not be calling for gamer unity, I'm sure.
Wait, but the Pathfinder is the one getting his opponent to "step unwittingly into your trap, and you catch him by surprise with a sudden, paralyzing thrust." So, WotC is implying that 4e will screw up and Pathfinder will take advantage of it?

Yes, that's it exactly. I like both 4E and Pathfinder, but WotC has certainly made a few missteps.


Mike Mearls wrote:
Don’t let that details (sic) drive us apart when the big picture says we should be joined together.

Those are great words.

Now, WotC... can you back up those words with actions?

Can fans of previous editions find a reason to look again to your company? For instance, can you bring back those cheap PDFs, reprinting those classics from the AD&D and BECMI days?

And while you're at it, how about some PDFs from the 3.X years? And I've been wanting to look into Alternity for some time...

(Yes, I know that WotC cited other reasons for taking back the PDFs, namely piracy. Somehow, I never could quite believe that.)

Now THAT would be a REAL call for unity!

(I mean, I assume that this call for unity means that WotC wants more role players under its banner to one extent or another.)

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

cibet44 wrote:

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.

Do you commonly read direct insults 'hidden' in bits of technical writing? Do you commonly hold those "insults" against specific persons who are vaguely associated with said writing? Maybe you should talk to someone about that, because it isn't normal.

I feel bad saying that, because it is the sort of statement which is so often used as a childish burn, but I assure you that it is meant only as a big of advice from one human being to another. This is an absurd accusation, and the fact that you find it to be so obvious is genuinely worrisome to me.

Silver Crusade

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Phneri wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:


What was on that page? Curious.

115 is one of the Ranger advancement path options. Called "Pathfinder." Clearly that can only mean this system, as pathfinder has no other reference.

Anywhere.

Ever.

/trollface

Yes. Although it's actually on p114. But, to be fair to cibet44, it does say, and I quote, "Pathfinder sucks! You all suck! Edition wars blah blah blah! Suck suck suck!"

(Please note: quote may not be entirely accurate.)

The first power under the Pathfinder Paragon Path is named "Wrong Step". I'm not sure that's an intentional jab, or would even be noticed by an editor at WotC, but that's what Pathfinder fans find objectionable.

Edit: OK, major ninja'd but that's what I get for replying without reading the whole thread.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
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. You don't get to call for gamer unity when your very design and promotion is what fractured the community to begin with. If 4E were a raging success and Pathfinder an abject failure Mr Mearls would not be calling for gamer unity, I'm sure.

If it is a dig at Pathfinder I think it’s quite funny. You are really going to get all offended because someone might be making a sly jab at a game you play? Grow up.

I have virtually no interest in 4e, I bear the game system and the people who enjoy playing it absolutely no ill will. Whether there is or isn’t some irony in Mike Mearls calling for gamer unity, the basic message is a good one.

The gamer community being fractured has far less to do with 4e, and nothing to do with page 114 or 115 of the 4e phb, than it has to do with some people (now and through the history of RPGs) being narrow minded and antagonistic instead of just getting on with playing the games they enjoy.

1 to 50 of 1,627 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Mearls pleading for unity All Messageboards