I was simply pointing out that there is little to any of them in terms of fluff or books that is likely going to grab the attention of someone not already looking at them.
Man, how do you think books get on the New York Times Bestseller List?
The whole point I am trying to make is that WOTC and 4E have a good sized group of players, but trying to expand it or even sustain it when it inevitably loses players is going to be tough, even with the board games, computer games, and other accessory lines. They can't rely on 3PPs to help spread the word, and they don't even have the RPGA to help them at this point, either. A large portion of the player base they used to rely on has moved...It's not my field, but it surprises me that you think an active 3PP community is going to rope people into Pathfinder but boardgames won't do the same for 4th edition.
My intuition is the exact opposite - I can imagine a non-RPGer picking up a board game or computer game and then looking into D&D (and in passing I dont think it matters if the computer uses a different ruleset from the tabletop game) but I can't imagine anyone buying a 3PP unless they're already a gamer. Maybe the 3PP will drag current 3.5 players to Pathfinder, but that's a diminishing pool of potential new players.
Agreed. The idea that a bunch of low-quality, nigh-invisible products only usable after you've already invested in the actual game would grab more people from outside the hobby than a standalone board game is straight up crazy-talk.
The mythical market of untapped players just needing to hear the gospel to be redeemed isn't nearly as large as some would make it out to be.
How large do some make it out to be?
And how large is it really?
Do you know? Cuz that would be awesome if you did.
lololol...not even comparable...APG is to PF, as PHB2 was to 4e...
And PHB1 is to PHB2 as PHB1 is to Essentials.
And so, by extension, APG is to PF as Essentials is to PHB1.
|
You're agreeing with Cirno? How unusual.If Essentials is a re-write, so is APG.lololol...not even comparable...APG is to PF, as PHB2 was to 4e...
How is that agreeing? The APG is not the same as Essentials. It's best comparison is PHB2.
APG/PHBx did a follow up to the core in adding new classes and new options to old classes. Essentials is a differing design philosophy.
|
|
lololol...not even comparable...APG is to PF, as PHB2 was to 4e...And PHB1 is to PHB2 as PHB1 is to Essentials.
And so, by extension, APG is to PF as Essentials is to PHB1.
Covered...PHBx is an addition to the same mechanics...Essentials is a different design.
Compatible? Sure. But 3.5 was compatible with 3.0. PF is compatible with 3.5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, I have an awesome idea!
Let's all go back and forth posting our opposing opinions over and over again, changing the wording slightly every time. Because I'm sure this is the time we'll phrase things in exactly the right way to make everyone else understand just how wrong they've been the whole time. Heck, they'll probably even thank us for it.
Hey, I have an awesome idea!
Let's all go back and forth posting our opposing opinions over and over again, changing the wording slightly every time. Because I'm sure this is the time we'll phrase things in just the right way to make everyone else understand just how wrong they've been the whole time. They'll probably even thank us for it.
There's always the off-chance a little nugget or Gem somewhere creeps its way into these sorts of discussions and makes one person say "Hmm, you know I never thought about it like that before. That changes one of my perspectives about the whole discussion." and WHAM, one person less resistant to tryng something new, even if it's not preferred.
The fact that we're here on Paizo's forums tells me we're fans of Paizo, and I for one think it's a great game. Much like I thought v3.5 and 3E were fun too (less than PF, but you get my point). But it's not about that, it's about attempting to correct misguided half-truths to those that might not know better. It's about showing others that there is a difference of opinion regarding other gaming companies.
It's about telling people that it's OK to like other gaming systems besides Paizo or WotC or whatever's product. Or at least to show other's that some people take this hobby WAY, WAY to seriously and get a good laugh out of it. I shake my head about 3 times a day when I go through these forums with a smile on my face. And if it takes 8 pages, 400+ posts to find that one Gem or Nugget of opinion-changing then so be it.
I'm not even sure how this is a debate.
On one hand, you have the argument that Essentials is not a rewrite due to nothing being re-written.
On the other hand, you have the argument that Essentials is a rewrite because he totally says so.
Hmmm.
I'm not even sure how this is a debate.
On one hand, you have the argument that Essentials is not a rewrite due to nothing being re-written.
On the other hand, you have the argument that Essentials is a rewrite because he totally says so.
Hmmm.
Ah, the famous "I'm right and you're wrong" stratagem. That is sure to bring a rapid and decisive end to matters. :P
Good night folks...I'm off to bed. Have fun storming the castle.
Covered...PHBx is an addition to the same mechanics...
Totally. Except where they introduced power points in PHB3. Or hybrid multiclassing. Or entirely new implements in PHB2. Or entirely new categories of magic items/boons in DMG2. Or where they added vehicle rules in Adventurer's Vault. Or intelligent items. Or item sets in AV2. Or themes in Dark Sun. Or backgrounds in Forgotten Realms.
Or can we just accept that new mechanics get added to D&D all the time and have been added since 1st Edition?
Essentials is a different design.
What, like, aesthetically? Sure. Functionally? It still plugs into the design framework of 4e, no matter how much you might want to believe otherwise.
Compatible? Sure. But 3.5 was compatible with 3.0. PF is compatible with 3.5.
If you need a conversion guide to use rules and options from one in the other, you are talking about something less than total compatibility.
lololol...not even comparable...APG is to PF, as PHB2 was to 4e...And PHB1 is to PHB2 as PHB1 is to Essentials.
And so, by extension, APG is to PF as Essentials is to PHB1.
Covered...PHBx is an addition to the same mechanics...Essentials is a different design.
Compatible? Sure. But 3.5 was compatible with 3.0. PF is compatible with 3.5.
I think it's safe to say that neither example is really good and that the release of the Essentials line doesn't really fit into any "easy" comparison of previous editions. While they did have Errata updates in v3.5, they're no where near as complex or consistant as they are with 4E. I vieew it as just more Errata/update. An easy to use tool which helps players graps the mechanics of 4E. Has the Essentials line replaced the PHB for some rules? Oh yea, like Stealth for example. But it's still the only hard-back source to obtain the Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Warlord, and Wizard classes. So by that extent, it doesn't really make it an edition revison along the likes of 3e to v3.5 as those classes haven't been ovehauld and labled as such in Print.
|
|
I'm not even sure how this is a debate.
On one hand, you have the argument that Essentials is not a rewrite due to nothing being re-written.
On the other hand, you have the argument that Essentials is a rewrite because he totally says so.
Hmmm.
snicker...I am not sure how either...
on the one hand your head is planted firmly up your....ahem
on the other you are completely dismissive...
WotC has stated themselves that Essentials is the New Design Policy Moving Forward. It wasn't me saying it. It was them.
Have they been printing new runs of the Pre-Essentials books? Not So Much?
You mean to tell me they have not re-written the classes? Didn't someone just mention about the cleric just recently getting a re-write?
The way the classes are designed and how they will be designed has changed from the way it was done in the beginning.
How does it matter? If we all agreed to call it "a new edition" or all agreed to call it "a subset of rules compatible with the current edition" or anything else. How does the world change?
I just dont see the point arguing terminology. I can see why "Is 4th Edition just a boardgame?" or "Are all 4th edition classes the same, just with differently named powers?" are something worth arguing over - it's going to have an impact on whether someone may take up playing it or not. But "What kind of supplement is this optional book?"....Who cares?
How does it matter? If we all agreed to call it "a new edition" or all agreed to call it "a subset of rules compatible with the current edition" or anything else. How does the world change?
I just dont see the point arguing terminology. I can see why "Is 4th Edition just a boardgame?" or "Are all 4th edition classes the same, just with differently named powers?" are something worth arguing over - it's going to have an impact on whether someone may take up playing it or not. But "What kind of supplement is this optional book?"....Who cares?
Because there are certain people who want to point to Essentials and say "Look at that! That's the point where it became something that it wasn't before! And it was unlike any change we've previously seen! WotC lied to us about there being no 4.5! Shame on them! Shaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame!"
The fact that such a non-issue is apparently a big fat negative for certain people is pretty conclusive proof that WotC can't take one step forward without tripping over someone's over-entitled opinion.
That's the shame.
on the one hand your head is planted firmly up your....ahem
So much for civil discourse.
on the other you are completely dismissive...
There's a difference between being dismissive and not being given anything to argue against.
Because there are certain people who want to point to Essentials and say "Look at that! That's the point where it became something that it wasn't before! And it was unlike any change we've previously seen! WotC lied to us about there being no 4.5! Shame on them! Shaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame!"
The fact that such a non-issue is apparently a big fat negative for certain people is pretty conclusive proof that WotC can't take one step forward without tripping over someone's over-entitled opinion.
That's the shame.
Well, I agree that the motivation of the "Essentials=4.5" crowd is usually an attempt to impugn WoTC's character. (No idea if that's your point OilHorse, so don't take that as a comment directed to you specifically).
I just don't see the point in arguing the issue with them, really. I'm a big fan of the recent changes at WoTC, however our group uses no essentials stuff since we all like the offline CB so our rules/character options/magic items etc are all frozen there. The fact that I can use all the post-essentials adventures, sourcebooks, DDI articles, etcetera without noticing is pretty much all that matters. Somebody can say "A-ha! They lied!" but it's all semantics in my mind and a detailed back and forth about a system they probably dont even own or play isn't going to convince them. For those who ARE regular players who think it's some big new edition well they're probably less interested in painting WoTC as the Big Bad Game Company and it's nothing more than a difference of labelling.
In my opinion, the only point worth establishing is to reassure those thinking of trying 4th edition that it doesnt matter if half the group are using essentials and half are using pre-essentials books or some mishmash of the two. Whether you want to call it a new edition, a rules revision or just some new options - the backwards compatibility is pretty hard to criticise.
In my opinion, the only point worth establishing is to reassure those thinking of trying 4th edition that it doesnt matter if half the group are using essentials and half are using pre-essentials books or some mishmash of the two. Whether you want to call it a new edition, a rules revision or just some new options - the backwards compatibility is pretty hard to criticise.
Right, and that's the point that's most important to drive home. Honestly, none of us really believe we're going to suddenly convince the other of these misperceptions. But it's all about the flow of information. If someone who is thinking of picking up Essentials or any of the older 4e books comes by and sees this thread, I want them to come away secure in the knowledge that it's all 4e, and with as little confusion as possible. Similarly, if someone sees this thread who doesn't play 4e, but maybe talks with people who do in real life, I want them to be able to relate this compatibility to their friends, rather than saying, "Oh, Essentials? It's a whole new game - it's practically 5th Edition!"
Right, and that's the point that's most important to drive home. Honestly, none of us really believe we're going to suddenly convince the other of these misperceptions. But it's all about the flow of information. If someone who is thinking of picking up Essentials or any of the older 4e books comes by and sees this thread, I want them to come away secure in the knowledge that it's all 4e, and with as little confusion as possible. Similarly, if someone sees this thread who doesn't play 4e, but maybe talks with people who do in real life, I want them to be able to relate this compatibility to their friends, rather than saying, "Oh, Essentials? It's a whole new game - it's practically 5th Edition!"
Fair enough. I certainly agree that it's worth arguing against factually incorrect statements (like 'all classes are the same' or 'it's just a boardgame' or so forth). I'm not sure that naming conventions (sourcebook/revision/edition?) are a matter of fact. I just dont see the point in terminology debates since casual readers arent going to follow those very closely. It seems to me that a better response would be:
"Essentials is a whole new edition! Basically 4.5 or even 5.0,... WoTC lied! Typical!"
"Whatever. One can play with essentials classes right next to PH classes and not bat an eyelid. Similarly with post-essentials sourcebooks and adventures. If you want to play D&D, don't stress just get whatever books interest you. If you don't want to play then it doesnt really matter."
Followed by discussions of the different class options if the conversation proceeds.
I'm not even sure how this is a debate.
On one hand, you have the argument that Essentials is not a rewrite due to nothing being re-written.
On the other hand, you have the argument that Essentials is a rewrite because he totally says so.
The people here who actually play 4e and essentials are convinced it's not a new edition. But that's not enough for the PF/3.5 players.
If only hands-on experience with the situation at hand would help.
How is that agreeing? The APG is not the same as Essentials. It's best comparison is PHB2.
Heroes of the Fallen Lands = PHB4
Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms = PHB5Heroes of Shadow = PHB6
and the future Heroes of the Feywild will be PHB7.
Maybe WotC was just afraid of those large numbers behind the books.
WotC has stated themselves that Essentials is the New Design Policy Moving Forward. It wasn't me saying it. It was them.
Maybe you should point us toward that because I have no idea what this particularly means. I mean their formatting layout certianly changed in some ways with Essentials and they have stuck with that but the rules within that formatting change remain pretty much the same. Regrouping monster powers so that they are grouped by the type of action in use hardly strikes me as such a difference as to call it a new edition.
Have they been printing new runs of the Pre-Essentials books? Not So Much?
No, there is still stock of such books. If they run out of PHB3s they will definitly need to do a reprint however - Hybrid classes and the Monk are very popular and only found in those books (or the DDI).
You mean to tell me they have not re-written the classes? Didn't someone just mention about the cleric just recently getting a re-write?
Yep - biggest update of all the PHB1 classes - but this is the key point - that rewrite does not make the cleric more like the Essentials classes, it has a look and feel of a PHB1 cleric, it follows all the basic rules of a PHB1 cleric, it uses all the features of a PHB1 cleric...it is in fact a PHB1 cleric with errata. In fact I run a PHB1 cleric in the game I'm a player in and I did not even notice any changes - probably because I don't use the character optimization forums so my powers are not on the 'needs re-balance' list and all got a pass without update.
The way the classes are designed and how they will be designed has changed from the way it was done in the beginning.
No. What we are currently seeing in terms of the updates do not redesign the classes in terms of some 'new direction'. There is certianly some re-balancing going on and some presentation being put out within the new post Essentials formatting but these are PHB1 style classes and nothing has changed them from being that.
In fact it seems to me that elements like cleric rewrites clearly show their support for these classes - When they released 3.5 they did not follow that up by devoting most of their design capital for two or three months by emphasizing how much a part of the game the 3.0 Barbarian or Wizard where to the game as a whole, they ignored those classes from that point on. Here we had to wait on the popular Themes elements coming out for 4E for several months while they put time and effort into the PHB1 classes.
I'm not even sure how this is a debate.
On one hand, you have the argument that Essentials is not a rewrite due to nothing being re-written.
On the other hand, you have the argument that Essentials is a rewrite because he totally says so.
The people here who actually play 4e and essentials are convinced it's not a new edition. But that's not enough for the PF/3.5 players.
If only hands-on experience with the situation at hand would help.
I actually play 4e and I'm not certain that comparing it to the 3.5 revision is completely off (Even though I don't find the analogy 100% accurate).
I just am not participating in the discussion because I don't really find it interesting, I've already seen a this type of thread a few times before, and it will have almost no effect. Besides, me and my friends don't care whether 3.0 PHB : 3.5 PHB :: 4e PHB : 4e Essentials because it doesn't make it less (or more) fun either way.
I play 4e and Essentials. I also play Pathfinder. I would ask that you don't make comments for all the 4e players here or make dismissive comments toward the PF/3.5 posters.
I would ask that you don't make [...] dismissive comments toward the PF/3.5 posters.
What? Please point me to where I made dismissive comments.
I find the whole essentials=4.5 debate interesting. I personally think that it probably is 4.5, or the closest thing to it that we will ever see. I also think that such a distinction matters much less in 4E than in did for 3rd edition. In a system designed in many ways to mimic MMOs, most people don't care if the current revisions costitute 4.0, 4.5, 4.75, or 4.9999999. Revisions, errata, and updates are all similar enough and freuqent enough that they are nigh indistinguishable from each other. Therefore, while the debate over what constitutes 4.5 is interesting, a more interesting debate to me is does it really matter?
I find the whole essentials=4.5 debate interesting. I personally think that it probably is 4.5, or the closest thing to it that we will ever see. I also think that such a distinction matters much less in 4E than in did for 3rd edition. In a system designed in many ways to mimic MMOs, most people don't care if the current revisions costitute 4.0, 4.5, 4.75, or 4.9999999. Revisions, errata, and updates are all similar enough and freuqent enough that they are nigh indistinguishable from each other. Therefore, while the debate over what constitutes 4.5 is interesting, a more interesting debate to me is does it really matter?
Please stop your underhanded insults that 4e is an MMO. You mentioned it many times, we get it that you are convinced of that.
Thanks.
And no, the 4.5 debate is very boring, not interesting at all and only comes up when people are flamebaiting.
I would ask that you don't make [...] dismissive comments toward the PF/3.5 posters.What? Please point me to where I made dismissive comments.
It wasn't anything incredible otherwise I would have flagged it rather than mentioning it, but I was referring to the "But that's not enough for the PF/3.5 players." Maybe I regarded it as such because it seemed to me lumping this into a 4e posters against Pathfinder posters edition war. Like inserting "But that's not enough for the 4e players," I didn't see a significant purpose aside from calling out a group.
It wasn't anything incredible otherwise I would have flagged it rather than mentioning it, but I was referring to the "But that's not enough for the PF/3.5 players." Maybe I regarded it as such because it seemed to me lumping this into a 4e posters against Pathfinder posters edition war. Like inserting "But that's not enough for the 4e players," I didn't see a significant purpose aside from calling out a group.
Hmm. I see how it might be interpreted in such a confrontative way. That was not my intent. I apologize.
It wasn't anything incredible otherwise I would have flagged it rather than mentioning it, but I was referring to the "But that's not enough for the PF/3.5 players." Maybe I regarded it as such because it seemed to me lumping this into a 4e posters against Pathfinder posters edition war. Like inserting "But that's not enough for the 4e players," I didn't see a significant purpose aside from calling out a group.Hmm. I see how it might be interpreted in such a confrontative way. That was not my intent. I apologize.
Happy to hear that. Thanks.
I find it interesting that you find it insulting to have 4E compared to an MMO. To me at least, it was simply a point of fact. The way it is distributed, marketed, updated, and the balancing of the individual classes instead of the more traditional balanced team approach is much more in line with MMOs than earlier editions of D&D. This is neither good, bad, or indifferent; it is simply is. The fact that so many 4E supporters are so indignant about the comparison is interesting since WOTC seems to be going after that market of players more than any other.
Nah, it's just the correct way of handling you :-)
Unless you're willing to use Firefox, CodeMonkey and a certain script.
|
|
Please stop your underhanded insults that 4e is an MMO. You mentioned it many times, we get it that you are convinced of that.
Thanks.
And no, the 4.5 debate is very boring, not interesting at all and only comes up when people are flamebaiting.
But, 4e is designed to mimic MMOS, because Wotc went and tried to please the MMO crowd, and make them play tabletop, you may not like the fact, but it is a fact. Now, i don't like the way Wotc took with 4th edition, and i will never ever play it again, but that doesn't make it a bad game. Just a game me and my friends will never spend money on, or play.
|
I must admit, the amount of errata, even before Essentials came out, meant that "it" (a nebulous it meaning the 4e system) seemed to be becoming a revision of original 4e).
Now Essentials seemed to be a way to make 4e easier to get into, with certain variants on the original classes being more like the pre 4e classes, however that by itself does not make it not 4e, especially as they relabelled the classes Mage, Slayer etc. It was more akin to Paizo's archetypes I guess (though at this point I am maybe talking out of my arse, not being familiar with either Essentials or Paizo's archetypes :)
However, because WotC also incorporated all the errata to date into Essentials, as well as dropping explicit support for Rituals, and changing the pacing mechanic for magic items, it does seem like Essentials has become 4e revised - at least to some people.
Now, had WotC not have extra stock of the original PHBs out there and had reprinted it incoporating all the errata to date before Esssentials came out, then I think Essentials would not have been seen as a 4.5 as much as it perhaps is.
Having said all that, Essentials from what I understand is very much compatible with original 4e, its just that if someone is playing a PHB Wizard the GM may not be able to adjudicate the rules around Rituals with just the Essentials books.
Essentials and 4e may contain some differences but if those differences means its a "stealth 4.5" and that such a comment is being made to depict WotC in a bad light, then I think that poster should consider Paizo as just as bad if not worse by promising to keep 3.5 alive (3.5 Thrives!) and putting the 3.5 OGL Compatible logo on books that just aren't as compatible as E4e is with O4e.
Personally, putting aside my nerdrage I don't think either Paizo or WotC are the devil.
Please stop your underhanded insults that 4e is an MMO. You mentioned it many times, we get it that you are convinced of that.
Thanks.
I find it interesting that you find it insulting to have 4E compared to an MMO. To me at least, it was simply a point of fact. The way it is distributed, marketed, updated, and the balancing of the individual classes instead of the more traditional balanced team approach is much more in line with MMOs than earlier editions of D&D. This is neither good, bad, or indifferent; it is simply is. The fact that so many 4E supporters are so indignant about the comparison is interesting since WOTC seems to be going after that market of players more than any other.
But, 4e is designed to mimic MMOS, because Wotc went and tried to please the MMO crowd, and make them play tabletop, you may not like the fact, but it is a fact. Now, i don't like the way Wotc took with 4th edition, and i will never ever play it again, but that doesn't make it a bad game. Just a game me and my friends will never spend money on, or play.
So I explicitely ask you to refrain from these insults, and the only reaction is ... more of the same?
I am disappoint.
If you know of an MMO which is distributed in book form, I suggest you post it. Otherwise, I believe we can dismiss this point.
Not really, given that WOTC has cancelled most of the books they had been set to publish in the upcoming year. Also, I know both Everquest and WOW have a rule book out for table top gaming, so the line is a lot blurrier than you think.
Through advertising. Possibly bad advertising, but that's hardly something MMOs are unique for.
How is it just bad advertising when their main form of distribution is a subscription based model that is far more common in the MMO market than the table top RPG market?
There was some guy called E Gary Gygax who was prepared to write that balance was more important than verisimilitude. Not that I expect he knew much about how D&D was meant to be.
Presumably you are also prepared to say that any tabletop RPG where there's an attempt to balance things is more in line with MMOs. That GURPS makes powerful advantages or more significant disadvantages cost more than weak ones would then be a clear sign of it's MMO roots.
The issue isn't that balance is attempted, the issue is how that balance is achieved. Traditionally, at least in D&D, the assumed party was balanced; the individual classes were not. This worked fine because it was played in a cooperative environment with mostly stable groups. MMOs have to balance classes differently, since people typically alternate between different groups and playing solo. Individual characters have to be more self sufficient just because of the nature of how MMOs are played. 4E reflects this attitude carried over from MMOs very clearly, with the healing surges, and every class originally being perfectly balanced against each other. GURPS and other similar systems may have picked it up from MMOs or they might have predated MMOs; either way, that particular balancing approach is different than what D&D has tradtionally used.
Evidence please. Patterns of advertising, and such.
First, the entire system is able to be directly ported to a computer game. If you think this is an accidental by product, you're deluding yourself. Second, this portability, in theory at least, makes it easy for someone exposed to the computer game version to transition to the table top version with no bumps. Again, not an accident. Third, the MMO crowd is already used to subscription based services, unlike the traditional TTPRG market or those who play boardgames or novel readers. This is an important fact, as they would be most likely to want the least amount of backlash from their primary target audience, and as well as DDI is doing, it got and is still getting a very strong backlash from the traditional TTRPG community.
I find the whole essentials=4.5 debate interesting. I personally think that it probably is 4.5, or the closest thing to it that we will ever see. I also think that such a distinction matters much less in 4E than in did for 3rd edition. In a system designed in many ways to mimic MMOs, most people don't care if the current revisions costitute 4.0, 4.5, 4.75, or 4.9999999. Revisions, errata, and updates are all similar enough and freuqent enough that they are nigh indistinguishable from each other. Therefore, while the debate over what constitutes 4.5 is interesting, a more interesting debate to me is does it really matter?
Sure - if one wants to argue that the version number changes every time we see an update I'd buy that after a fashion. As it stands we see an update of one kind or another about every six weeks and we see a big update about every six months.
The single most important update to the game was probably the one that came with MMIII since that very significantly changed the monsters (there are arguments that this was actually the Darksun update - because it was apparently the development of Darksun the was the original driving force behind the MMIII update). At the actual game table this update has the most impact. Rule updates with Essentials where pretty small though I did like much of the clarification and we finally got a really good index...whoever it was that said an index should only be a single page never played an RPG (I wavered back and fourth on picking up the Rules Compendium for months and it was really the good index that finally sold me).
Furthermore, as has been noted we've seen some significant updates in the last few months...but are these Essentials updates? I mean Essentials came out, like 8 months ago or some such, and these updates don't have all that much to do with the Essentials classes, they are clearly focused on the PHB1 classes...so its difficult to see how that is an 'Essentials' update.
|
Now that we have our resident 4e brigade in one place, I'd like to make an announcement. I wrote a review of a 4e product (!) and it's positive (!!) perhaps even very positive (!!!).
It's about Monster Vault, and I would appreciate some more 4 or 5 stars - I'm trying to show Pazio that MV tokens are the way to go. C'mon guys, that beats doing another go on the roundabout with KaeYoss. :)
Sure - if one wants to argue that the version number changes every time we see an update I'd buy that after a fashion. As it stands we see an update of one kind or another about every six weeks and we see a big update about every six months.
The single most important update to the game was probably the one that came with MMIII since that very significantly changed the monsters (there are arguments that this was actually the Darksun update - because it was apparently the development of Darksun the was the original driving force behind the MMIII update). At the actual game table this update has the most impact. Rule updates with Essentials where pretty small though I did like much of the clarification and we finally got a really good index...whoever it was that said an index should only be a single page never played an RPG (I wavered back and fourth on picking up the Rules Compendium for months and it was really the good index that finally sold me).
Furthermore, as has been noted we've seen some significant updates in the last few months...but are these Essentials updates? I mean Essentials came out, like 8 months ago or some such, and these updates don't have all that much to do with the Essentials classes, they are clearly focused on the PHB1 classes...so its difficult to see how that is an 'Essentials' update.
That is the point I am trying to make. With 3.5, it was all the updates at once, requiring new books with all the changes, updates, errata, and such. In 4E, Esssentials can be seen in the same light, but it doesn't introduce the changes so much as catalog and condense them all in one place. The nature of constant updating makes it hard to pin down an actual version number simply becuase that leads to the question of how many small changes are needed to justify considering it a new version number.
But, 4e is designed to mimic MMOS, because Wotc went and tried to please the MMO crowd, and make them play tabletop, you may not like the fact, but it is a fact. Now, i don't like the way Wotc took with 4th edition, and i will never ever play it again, but that doesn't make it a bad game. Just a game me and my friends will never spend money on, or play.
It has some elements that WotC stole from MMO's but it does not really mimic them. I mean we are about to see a bunch of computer games hit the market that will bear the brand Dungeons & Dragons. I'll be pleased as punch to see them do a really good job of emulating the 4E tactical combat system...but I'll also be shocked. 4Es combat system is very tactical and highly mobile which looks nothing like modern action CRPGs.
Even where WotC was getting ideas off of MMOs usually there where some significant changes in either how it works or how its used. So we have powers on a timer (encounter powers) but in 4E they don't behave the same way as an MMO. Usually in an MMO your waiting for the time to elapse to use your power again. In 4E you need to take a short rest to get them back - that means you need 5 minutes of down time - does not happen within a combat, you can't run down the clock. Bursts are another style of power that they took but they are not normally all that common and often its mechanic for actually targeting an individual (targets one ally in burst 5 - would be a common way of describing how the targeting works).
Hence we certianly see some theft of MMO ideas but 4E does not have a look and feel of an MMO even in combat (and out of combat I see almost no parallel at all).
This worked fine because it was played in a cooperative environment with mostly stable groups.
But it doesn't, which is why Paizo APs don't go until level 20.
Individual characters have to be more self sufficient just because of the nature of how MMOs are played. 4E reflects this attitude carried over from MMOs very clearly, with the healing surges, and every class originally being perfectly balanced against each other.
So your point is that 4e is meant to be played solo? You are not making sense.
First, the entire system is able to be directly ported to a computer game. If you think this is an accidental by product, you're deluding yourself. Second, this portability, in theory at least, makes it easy for someone exposed to the computer game version to transition to the table top version with no bumps. Again, not an accident.
Wait - this makes no sense.
Games based on the 2nd edition ruleset:
- Baldur's Gate 1, 2a, 2b, expansions
- Icewind Dale 1 & 2
- Birthright
Games based on the 3rd edition ruleset:
- Neverwinter Nights, 3 expansion campaigns
- Neverwinter Nights 2, 3 expansion campaigns
+ 1000 of community made modules for NWN 1&2
- Temple of Elemental Evil
Games based on the 4th edition ruleset:
NONE
So what were you saying?
Third, the MMO crowd is already used to subscription based services, unlike the traditional TTPRG market or those who play boardgames or novel readers.
Completely unlike Paizo. I'm subscribing to both. I don't play MMORPGs.
So what were you saying?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was some guy called E Gary Gygax who was prepared to write that balance was more important than verisimilitude. Not that I expect he knew much about how D&D was meant to be.
I heard of him. Apparently a visionary of his time. Provided a great foundation for much better editions later. And his game was good considering it came from nothing. You just can't judge it by today's standards. It would not be respectful to tear it to pieces.
|
|
In my opinion, the only point worth Right, and that's the point that's most important to drive home. Honestly, none of us really believe we're going to suddenly convince the other of these misperceptions. But it's all about the flow of information. If someone who is thinking of picking up Essentials or any of the older 4e books comes by and sees this thread, I want them to come away secure in the knowledge that it's all 4e, and with as little confusion as possible. Similarly, if someone sees this thread who doesn't play 4e, but maybe talks with people who do in real life, I want them to be able to relate this compatibility to their friends, rather than saying, "Oh, Essentials? It's a whole new game - it's practically 5th Edition!"
+1
C'mon guys, that beats doing another go on the roundabout with KaeYoss. :)
You're just afraid I'll bring the Luftwaffe and the Bundeswehr!
There is a neverwinter coming out for 4th edition this year or the next. Plus, as good as neverwinter games were, they were horrible in emulating the rules. The only good game, rules-wise was Temple of elemental evil.
You are missing the point. There are and hopefully will be computer game versions of every edition of D&D.
No reasonably big studio will make a true to the rules version of a D&D game, because they are convinced that turn-based games don't sell good enough to recover the investment. Troika was a fluke, and the lackluster sales of ToEE and the subsequent bankruptcy seem to hint that that's true.
C'mon guys, that beats doing another go on the roundabout with KaeYoss. :)You're just afraid I'll bring the Luftwaffe and the Bundeswehr!
If you learned anything from history, you'd know that non-germans will always bring up the Schutzstaffel when it comes to german military. Duh.
There is a neverwinter coming out for 4th edition this year or the next. Plus, as good as neverwinter games were, they were horrible in emulating the rules. The only good game, rules-wise was Temple of elemental evil.
Neverwinter Nights (the Atari version) was a great game. Nevermind the rules, the game came closer to emulate the D&D feeling than anything else.
NWN2 was total crap. The feeling was gone. The things that made NWN1 so great were gone.