I agree with them as well. As a long Time Lurker and Admirer of Paizo/Pathfinders work, I have to agree that 4e plays alot closer to 1e than PF does. Both 1e and 4e are about DM Fiat. They are loose-ish frameowrks to work imagination and excitement on. They are far more freeform than anything 3.x has ever produced.
Which is a very good example - probably the single most important one really. Still let us consider another that goes to the root of a lot of what people notice most in 4E...the Power System.
Thing is, when we consider 1E this is not really so far fetched. In 1E all sorts of people had powers. The Thief is probably the quintessential example - he had a whole list of powers that mostly no one else can do, just because he was a Thief. 4E certianly codifies this more and spells it out, often with the use of cards, but, at their core, powers themselves are not really all that far fetched for a 1E player.
Both pathfinder and 4E draw upon, and continue the traditions of previous editions of D&D, but neither is going in the direction I would like. So I do not see any true successor, even if it no longers holds the D&D brand name. The hard part is getting people to play other games, especially those that DM and have found their comfort zone. Myself included.
Where pathfinder is just a repackage of 3.5, while borrowing from 4E, Essentials took the other route by trying to get closer to AD&D.
Any more comments from me on either system is just wishfull thinking, and maybe a little frustration.
And before the primate ancestor, we evolved from a common mammal ancestor too, right? And both we and other evolutions from that remain mammals.
And before the common mammal ancestor?
A common animal ancestor.
But if you want to chase biological evolution backwards, you're better off using cladistics. I only referred to primates because it's a bit more familiar than the primatomorpha mirorder.
Which is a very good example. Let us consider another that really goes to the root of a lot of what people notice most in 4E...the Power System.
This is it. I think that when a lot of people look at 4e, they see the power system, misunderstand where it's coming from, and that is solely responsible for the "This isn't D&D!" reaction we see. The rationale is that it looks different, therefore it must play different.
As long as you don't drink Chai. Then you're dead to me.
So that's why you never call!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and that is solely responsible for the "This isn't D&D!" reaction we see. The rationale is that it looks different, therefore it must play different.
No not really. Your memory is a bit short on 4e's rollout, and how much the developers were trying to divorce and lesser extent, put down things before.
Power system is more icing on the cake then the main complaint.
One illustrating exactly my point within an hour of my making it? Probably a good indication that there are more out there who share the same opinion.One =! many. ;-)From my point of view (and from that of many others), 4e embraces the traditions and history of D&D just as much as 3.5/Pathfinder. In fact, many people believe it does this better than 3.5/Pathfinder.I think 4th edition is closer to AD&D than pathfinder is.Case in point.
Or more importantly that there are many different and valid opinions on what is an important aspect of D&D. We wouldn't have the Old School Renaissance unless some people think 3E AND 4E are too different from the game they love to play.
Does it have dungeons in it? Are there dragons there? Then it's probably D&D.
|
|
No. It looks this way from your point of view. From my point of view (and from that of many others), 4e embraces the traditions and history of D&D just as much as 3.5/Pathfinder. In fact, many people believe it does this better than 3.5/Pathfinder.
As much as you'd like it to be as simple as "4e is D&D in name only," I'm afraid that's only the case for a certain, vocal group of individuals.
Really? So when WOTC put down teh great wheel, duplication in elements, vatican magic and a host of other items that it no longer does, where is it embracing traditions and history?
Ask any Forgotten realms player about how much it "embraced" history.
Not really on 4e. If you remember the roll out, Wotc developers repeatedly were trying to divorcing themselves from many of the things that came before. And putting more then a few down.
No not really. Your memory is a bit short on 4e's rollout, and how much the developers were trying to divorce and lesser extent, put down things before.
Power system is more icing on the cake then the main complaint.
Really? So when WOTC put down teh great wheel, duplication in elements, vatican magic and a host of other items that it no longer does, where is it embracing traditions and history?
Ask any Forgotten realms player about how much it "embraced" history.
Good lord.
WotC divorced 4e from some things that 3.5 embraced. And 4e embraced some of the things that 3.5 divorced itself from.
I mean, you understand that there was D&D before 3.5, right? And that it was often very different from 3.5?
As for Forgotten Realms, let's not forget that D&D was around for quite some time before that campaign setting rolled out the door. Nor ought we to pretend that 4e was the only Realms-Shattering Event FR had ever seen (the term exists for a reason).
My memory's not short. I've been around for a few editions, now. 4e isn't any less D&D than 3.5 was.
EDIT: Also, "vatican magic"? So rad.
The departure from vancian magic was a big thing for 4E. Other elements not present in 3.x but present in earlier editions aren't really what I have heard complaints about. Most of the complaints of the system itself is that it killed magic as it was understood to function in D&D. It didn't modify it, it outright removed it. Given just how important magic was in 3.x, and from what little I played of it, 2nd edition, that is not a minor change. It wasn't just the Vancian system they removed, it was the entire underpinning of how magic worked. While a welcome change to some, it most definitely was enough to make it feel like a very different game. 4E may be very close to 1E, but skipping entire editions worth of evolution puts it very firmly on a different path, even if it is conceptually within the same family.
The departure from vancian magic was a big thing for 4E. Other elements not present in 3.x but present in earlier editions aren't really what I have heard complaints about. Most of the complaints of the system itself is that it killed magic as it was understood to function in D&D. It didn't modify it, it outright removed it. Given just how important magic was in 3.x, and from what little I played of it, 2nd edition, that is not a minor change. It wasn't just the Vancian system they removed, it was the entire underpinning of how magic worked. While a welcome change to some, it most definitely was enough to make it feel like a very different game. 4E may be very close to 1E, but skipping entire editions worth of evolution puts it very firmly on a different path, even if it is conceptually within the same family.
Yeah, I think Pathfinder is very clearly a different path from 4th edition, I dont dispute that. What I find odd are the comments claiming that 4th edition fails to: '..echo a lot of D&D traditions or history..'
since I think it just echoes different traditions and history from those echoed by Pathfinder.
stuff
That makes a lot of sense to me. In fact, once I'm done getting my life back in order after this move, I plan on checking out 4e (again) and seeing what's up. I've always been into multiple games at once, and I'm sure that I can find some time in-between checking out Starblazer Adventures and Leverage and looking for a Dresden Files group etc.
The departure from vancian magic was a big thing for 4E. Other elements not present in 3.x but present in earlier editions aren't really what I have heard complaints about. Most of the complaints of the system itself is that it killed magic as it was understood to function in D&D. It didn't modify it, it outright removed it. Given just how important magic was in 3.x, and from what little I played of it, 2nd edition, that is not a minor change. It wasn't just the Vancian system they removed, it was the entire underpinning of how magic worked. While a welcome change to some, it most definitely was enough to make it feel like a very different game. 4E may be very close to 1E, but skipping entire editions worth of evolution puts it very firmly on a different path, even if it is conceptually within the same family.Yeah, I think Pathfinder is very clearly a different path from 4th edition, I dont dispute that. What I find odd are the comments claiming that 4th edition fails to: '..echo a lot of D&D traditions or history..'
since I think it just echoes different traditions and history from those echoed by Pathfinder.
But how many people still plsying really remember 1E? Another key point is that part of the history is that each edition has built on the last. 4E completely ignored that very visible tradition. Again, I don't think its the reviving of old traditions that is the source of conflict, it's the blatant abandonment and outright rejection of several very visible traditions that go all the way back to the beginning.
But how many people still plsying really remember 1E?
I don't know but it's my reference point (I didnt play 2nd and only a tiny bit of 3.5). "4th edition doesnt have anything to do with the game's history" seems to me like a subjective judgement presented as an objective fact. I'm not actually disagreeing with the experience of whoever posted it intially (you?) since that's their opinion and if I did I'd be making the exact same error - I was just curious since it's so far from my own experience. That's why I asked whoever it was which edition they started with - I could see someone who had begun playing with 3.5 having that view.
Another key point is that part of the history is that each edition has built on the last. 4E completely ignored that very visible tradition. Again, I don't think its the reviving of old traditions that is the source of conflict, it's the blatant abandonment and outright rejection of several very visible traditions that go all the way back to the beginning.
As I said, the course of evolution of both PF and 4E are clearly very different and I agree 4E rejected a bunch of 3.5 traditions/conventions and will accept your word that those can be traced back to the beginning. My perspective is no doubt a minority position, but nonetheless I think 3.5 rejected a bunch of AD&D assumptions too. That's my only point.
The 'source of conflict' isnt terribly interesting to me, since my group doesnt have any edition-angst. What I find useful/interesting about these discussions is to here opinions from outside my circle of friends - I dont have any intention to resolve any conflict.
But how many people still plsying really remember 1E? Another key point is that part of the history is that each edition has built on the last. 4E completely ignored that very visible tradition. Again, I don't think its the reviving of old traditions that is the source of conflict, it's the blatant abandonment and outright rejection of several very visible traditions that go all the way back to the beginning.
Well obviously the ones that are dropping in and saying that they just came back to the game for one. Beyond that its indisputable that the Vancian Magic system was dropped but its not really 4E that was the truly experimental edition. That was 3rd with the changing around of the DM fiat element. Changing the job description of the DM is pretty fundamental. What 3rd proved, and Monte blogged on this way back when, was that you could change some pretty fundamental elements of D&D and still have D&D.
I certianly found the transition from 2nd to 3rd to be far and away the most jarring of the edition switches. The reason was probably because I run a very long standing home brew that goes right back to 1E. However 3rd edition switched out a lot of pretty basic elements.
This is easiest to explain using Greyhawk because many of us are familiar with Greyhawk. If you read 1E Greyhawk (works if you do 1E Dragonlance as well) you'll quickly realize that the history and driving elements of the 1E worlds are really about humans. Human migrations, their wars and conflicts etc. For example the barbarous Frutzii raid south into the Great Kingdom every year as part of their culture and that effects the politics of the Great Kingdom. However with the switch to 3rd we finally really see a divorce from this kind of story telling. Now the worlds are dominated by large numbers of Vampiric Half Minitour Half Drow individuals and the story elements that focus on humancentric historical narratives recede out of the picture. The Frutzii as a society stop making sense in the paradigms set down in 3rd edition and the material written for them in 3rd take this into account and shift the narrative. For me that was the really big change to the system since I had a homebrew that was highly influenced by 1E elements like this.
With 4E I had already rebuilt my world to handle 3rd and the changes to 4E where, for the most part simplicity itself. Vancian Magic system gone? Yes but the DM fiat system was back and heavily supported. So in my 3rd edition game there was the powerful wizard akin to Tenser that lived in a tower on a hill and you did not f&*~ with him. In 4E he's still there and if your stupid enough to f*@# with him I'll give him 12 really obscene powers flavoured around magic and kick my plays ass with them. Spell lists may be gone but the core idea that there are people that can wield magic is not.
It says something that its now extremely difficult in either 3rd or 4th (the modern systems) to run some of the adventures of the earlier era. Dragon Mountain, for example is impossible because 3rd flipped the power curve presumptions of the characters (and that continues in 4E). In earlier editions characters might gain a fair bit of power in the first few levels but that actually really fell off pretty fast and then power (except for the wizard) became much more incremental. The result is that even fairly high level characters are in danger of just being dragged down by sheer attrition with lower level creatures. Dragon Mountain does that by having Kobolds, mostly your garden variety 1/2 HD kind drive a 10th level party to the edge of their abilities through skillful use of traps and lots of attrition.
In the modern versions of the game this really does not happen because characters get exponentially more powerful as they gain levels - so that by the time your 10th armies of knights can't stop you - a big beast might but even hundreds of 1st level knights are no match for you. Essentially high level characters are more powerful then armies. A pretty broken element all things considered...but then feats are fun for players so some things need to be hand waved because in the end we are playing a game that is supposed to be fun and trying to maintain realism here comes at to high a price.
My point with all this is that it was really 3rd that started us down the road to the idea that there could be some truly fundamental changes to the chassis. 4E has a few as well but reverted to older methods in other ways. In the end its not really any more different from 1st then Pathfinder is, but its changed different elements. All that said its pretty clear that even 3rd made an impression on 4E - it uses the d20 system after all. In many ways the difference is that PF is an evolution of 3.5 - it continues down a linear path. 4E is more of a lateral shift almost as if it was 3rd edition all over again but this time a different 3rd edition that kept different sacred cows and jettisoned others.
|
My humble opinion of the topic. Zero impact. Game designers come and go in all companies. A few new ideas may filter into newer books, but no throwing the baby out with the bath water changes.
PS: The only people I can see that would state that 3e was a logical transition from 1e perhaps didn't play 1e much. Mechanics, ideology, and cosmology all changed - 3e D&D was a whole new game.
Marvel comics have their 'Ultimate' titles that run (in a different universe) alongside their original counterparts.
With hindsight, I think Wizards of the Coast could have simply announced they were mothballing the old version of the Realms and launching a parallel universe 'Ultimate' version instead of trying to cobble together what (in my opinion) was an edition shift too far...
WotC screwed up here, they had their reasons but it seems clear thos reasons where not good enough to justify the change. In hindsite they should not have changed anything significant at all really. Minor tweaks to account for changes in the system and no more. They learned from their mistake however as they were very careful with the rest of the campaign releases to give the fans what they wanted. Darksun was the only other release that was significantly changed and in this case it was basically a reboot because by the time TSR had finished with that world it was all verdant fields and Halflings playing with squirrels...and some how that fails to convey the Darksun that the fans where looking for.
All that said if you don't like what WotC did with the Realms but still want to use 4E its not exactly difficult to simply run with the Realms using the fluff from 3rd edition.
more stuff
Thanks again, I have some 1e stuff (that I got secondhand) and that power curve difference is useful to know for if I ever decide to try and adapt it for a game.
As long as you don't drink Chai. Then you're dead to me.
A lovely spiced Masala Chai is the king of hot beverages! You and your evil empire of iced coffee favoritism ;)
By the way thanks very much for the Rusty Dragon blog, Runelord conversion notes. Was a god send in running Burnt Offerings for 4E. I have handed over DM duties for The Skinsaw Murders to another of the group and he is using your conversion notes too. Fantastic job, although we are dreading to getting to part 5 where we will have to step up and convert material. The Paizo campaign material is stunning, big fan of the inner sea. Then again I played through my A levels and degree in a Mystara based game.
I am in agreement with lots of the AD&D/BECMI returners here. Both games seem like a continuatuion of D&D. Both are good. No way we will solve the conflict of those who came through the transition from 3. I never played 3.x, but as I stated in a previous post the sheer amount of rules and mechanics was off putting for me to introduce (or even learn myself) to a group with 3 folks out of 6 who had played RPG's, mostly 16-18 years previously.
Vancian* magic compared to powers was a bit of a "this is different" moment but it makes sense. Nearly every player in Ad&D when I played fought to be the one to play the wizard. As well as that having martial exploits, so everyone could do somethinng cool was great.
I suppose what I am saying, in a rambling, in between writing a propsal at work is the D&D and its evolutions are great, Paizo is great and well done us for having a great hobby :)
*Vancian was a term I learned lurking here, as well as MAD, BECMI and all these lovely gamer phrases.
By the way thanks very much for the Rusty Dragon blog, Runelord conversion notes. Was a god send in running Burnt Offerings for 4E. I have handed over DM duties for The Skinsaw Murders to another of the group and he is using your conversion notes too. Fantastic job, although we are dreading to getting to part 5 where we will have to step up and convert material.
If I snag a couple days of downtime over the next few months where I can really throw myself at it, I'll see about finishing up the fifth adventure and getting some work done on the sixth. Who knows. It might happen.
>_>
|
|
I think 4th edition is closer to AD&D than pathfinder is. When you're looking at the history/tradition are you evaluating each vs 3.5 or vs something older? (I mean Pathfinder is obviously much closer to 3.5 than 4th edition is, so those who began playing around 3.0/3.5's release would no doubt judge Pathfinder to be truer to D&D's tradition. I have no clue about 2nd edition).
Interestingly I really got started with D&D with 3.5* and yet 4e feels like D&D is as much as 3.5 did.
Some of the mechanics I have issue with and overall prefer 3.5, but also like a lot of what 4e did - I dislike Vancian magic and so 4e's At Wills and Encounter powers make for a much more fun game for me personally.
*I did actually play a handful of sessions in older editions, not quite sure what it was, but I thought the system was patched together and clunky and the players annoyed me to the point that I set myself up for a heroic death and made it clear to the GM that I wanted my character to stay dead as I wouldn't be returning.
The only other session I played (again no idea what edition) was at an overnight D&D game at GenCon US back in 1997 I think. It was a stereotypical dungeon bash and was a bit boring IMHO.
If I snag a couple days of downtime over the next few months where I can really throw myself at it, I'll see about finishing up the fifth adventure and getting some work done on the sixth. Who knows. It might happen.
>_>
Ah my subtle hint worked then :) Really I am sure you are busy doing The Legacy of Fire conversion for your own home group, will do us good to do some playing with the monster builder when we reach volume 5. Will be a long time, some game nights we have to play poker so it was a nice 5 month first volume :)
If you are ever in the UK and London I owe you at least 4-5 Masala Chai's! ;)
Incidentally, people keep talking about the death of Vancian Casting. There's still daily spells!
Furthermore, having only 3 or so daily spells a day rather then three hundred? That's a lot closer to both earlier editions of D&D, and to actual Vancian casting. Wizards in the Dying Earth series had maybe 4 spells at their greatest peak of power, and wizards in the earliest editions had long, long, long memorizing times and couldn't memorize in the dungeon, so they typically had an incredibly significantly smaller number of spells they brought with them.
Really? So when WOTC put down teh great wheel, duplication in elements, vatican magic and a host of other items that it no longer does, where is it embracing traditions and history?
Ask any Forgotten realms player about how much it "embraced" history.
Actually, as a Forgotten Realms fan, I think 4E did a really good job with the setting. But I'd rather not go into my list of things that the setting needed to have changed to it. And they did look back in history to revive High Imaskar and the City of Shade/New Netheril is still going strong (yet another considerd dead civilization of old).
And, if you've paid attention, the "Vancian" system you so dearly love is still present in the 4E design method. Wizards still have to memorize spells from their spellbook to cast them. They still lose the very potent spells after casting, requiring them to rest and relearn. If anything, the Vancian system is just up-graded in the AEDU-system (at-will/encounter/daily/utility) and ALL the PHB classes rely on it.
I'm confused by the duplication in elements....don't know where your going here. And the Great Wheel is just a different way to interpret other planes of existance. I look at it as one philosopher using that method while another philosopher uses the other. Neither is right or wrong, just different.
Neither is right or wrong, just different.
I think sums up the whole thread even if it was not posted as such. I have the strong urge to copy the lyrics from the Different Strokes theme tune into this post.
Also damn my eyes for discovering that the Paizo site is not blocked at work!
Let's not forget that PF has at-wills as well, they are just 0-level spells is all.
|
|
But how many people still playing really remember 1E?
Yeah, wow. What does THAT mean? I know LOTS of people that played 1E and are still playing. Hell, I started playing AD&D (1E, as it came to be known) when I was around 12 and I still play all the time (check my profile if you want more info). Good lord, I'm only 42, dude!
For the record, as someone who played and loved plenty AD&D, I certainly don't see 4E as any kind of continuation of AD&D at all. It is very far from it! I don't see the Pathfinder RPG as a continuation of AD&D either, really but I DO see the Pathfinder RPG as the real successor to everything that Gygax and AD&D created. That's not a shot on 4E - if you like the game, that's great. I tried it, hated it and am sticking with the Pathfinder RPG 100%
Also, it seems as though we have gone WAY off topic. Is there any hope of circling this thread back around to talking about the WOTC layoffs and what ramifications they may or may not have?
But how many people still playing really remember 1E?
Yeah, wow. What does THAT mean? I know LOTS of people that played 1E and are still playing. Hell, I started playing AD&D (1E, as it came to be known) when I was around 12 and I still play all the time (check my profile if you want more info). Good lord, I'm only 42, dude!
For the record, as someone who played and loved plenty AD&D, I certainly don't see 4E as any kind of continuation of AD&D at all. It is very far from it! I don't see the Pathfinder RPG as a continuation of AD&D either, really but I DO see the Pathfinder RPG as the real successor to everything that Gygax and AD&D created. That's not a shot on 4E - if you like the game, that's great. I tried it, hated it and am sticking with the Pathfinder RPG 100%
Also, it seems as though we have gone WAY off topic. Is there any hope of circling this thread back around to talking about the WOTC layoffs and what ramifications they may or may not have?
Continuation is not really the right word. 4E is more of a throwback, and I believe of BECMI (or more likely the Rules Cyclopedia) more the 1E. We know from blogs and such that Mike Mearls in particular was playing a lot of BECMI while working on the 4E rules, it seems it was a significant part of where he went for inspiration and its fingerprints are all over 4E.
But how many people still plsying really remember 1E? Another key point is that part of the history is that each edition has built on the last. 4E completely ignored that very visible tradition. Again, I don't think its the reviving of old traditions that is the source of conflict, it's the blatant abandonment and outright rejection of several very visible traditions that go all the way back to the beginning.
Incidentally, they don't even like people mentioning either 3e or 4e. Neither of those are D&D in their eyes.
Sometimes I think that a lot of people here on the Paizo forums literally don't go to any other forums BUT the Paizo ones.
|
|
You know what? Some people like 4e, some prefer 3.x and Pathfinder. If you don't play both editions, you probably hate one or the other for myriad reasons.
However, one thing we can all agree on is that WOTC is run by a bunch of corporate asshats who don't really care about the game as they do about the profit line. What they don't understand is that with a roleplaying system, the game is the profit line.
Am I right?
To be fair Hasbro is run like a share holder run publicly traded corporation only interested in profit today. Which has a trickle down effect on WotC, which has a trickle down effect on those that run DnD with in WotC. I think most of those that work on DnD within WotC do honestly care about the game. As for those that run WotC it is hard to say, but the fact they have to answer to their hasbro overlords on matters of profits will effect what they do regardless of their personal feelings.
But how many people still plsying really remember 1E? Another key point is that part of the history is that each edition has built on the last. 4E completely ignored that very visible tradition. Again, I don't think its the reviving of old traditions that is the source of conflict, it's the blatant abandonment and outright rejection of several very visible traditions that go all the way back to the beginning.Incidentally, they don't even like people mentioning either 3e or 4e. Neither of those are D&D in their eyes.
Sometimes I think that a lot of people here on the Paizo forums literally don't go to any other forums BUT the Paizo ones.
I think one of the people that thought 3.x wasn't D&D was Gygax (he didn't get a chance to weigh in on 4e).
You know what? Some people like 4e, some prefer 3.x and Pathfinder. If you don't play both editions, you probably hate one or the other for myriad reasons.
No, we don't. In fact, it's fairly rare among 4e players to find someone who actually hates 3.5. Most of us enjoyed it while we were playing it, and then moved on to what we consider a step up when it came around.
I think this is something that a lot of Pathfinder fans (or anti-WotC folk) have a hard time understanding: their attitude of being against a game they don't play rather than simply being for a game they do play is not an attitude shared by most of the gaming community.
The prevalence of this attitude is unique to the Pathfinder community, and the fact that you believe it's an attitude shared equally among players of all version of D&D is an excellent illustration of exactly how much of an insular echo-chamber the Pathfinder community has become.
However, one thing we can all agree on is that WOTC is run by a bunch of corporate asshats who don't really care about the game as they do about the profit line.
Having personally met and spoken to quite a few of the people working on D&D over at WotC, I think you are very, very wrong. They care about making D&D the best it can possibly be, and the know that if they do so, it will also be commercially successful.
So, no, we can't all agree on that. That's just you, projecting your own inflamed opinion onto everyone else. There are some who probably share your opinion. There are many who don't.
But how many people still plsying really remember 1E? Another key point is that part of the history is that each edition has built on the last. 4E completely ignored that very visible tradition. Again, I don't think its the reviving of old traditions that is the source of conflict, it's the blatant abandonment and outright rejection of several very visible traditions that go all the way back to the beginning.Incidentally, they don't even like people mentioning either 3e or 4e. Neither of those are D&D in their eyes.
Sometimes I think that a lot of people here on the Paizo forums literally don't go to any other forums BUT the Paizo ones.
It's fine to counter someone else's argument, especially when they are asking a question that you can answer better than they can, but you missed my point.
If 4E had tried marketing to those people instead of trying to convince people that 3.5 really wasn't as great as people thought it to be, than the backlash would have been significantly less. The target market would have bought into it or ignored it, leaving WOTC free to look elsewhere for players without having to also deal with a serious backlash from the initial failure. Instead, they chose to bash a far more current product, along with the history of development that product took. They could have touted all the things they were reviving from 2nd edition, AD&D, or even earlier, but that isn't the path they took; they first removed and than bad mouthed all the visible traditions that most people paying attention to 4E's release were familiar with.
There may still be a fair number of people playing 1st Ed, but most of them are already in their own little corner, and seem content to stay there, and the game that most people are familiar with has evolved to the point where any comparisons to that system are tricky at best, as at least half your audience won't understand them.
Ultimately, the point is, you can make all the comparisons you want, but WOTC chose to compare to only one other version, 3.5, at least initially, and got burned when their attempts to discredit their own former product didn't go over well. The few official references they made to earlier systems than that were short, vague, and unsupported.
As for Gygax, I get the impression he didn't think anything designed by someone other than himself was D&D, so I'm not sure that his view is really one that will prove anyone's point very well. From what I've seen and heard about him, he was a very bitter man in the period that everyone keeps trying pull his quotes from.
It's fine to counter someone else's argument, especially when they are asking a question that you can answer better than they can, but you missed my point.
If 4E had tried marketing to those people instead of trying to convince people that 3.5 really wasn't as great as people thought it to be, than the backlash would have been significantly less. The target market would have bought into it or ignored it, leaving WOTC free to look elsewhere for players without having to also deal with a serious backlash from the initial failure. Instead, they chose to bash a far more current product, along with the history of development that product took.
Except they didn't, really. They highlighted a handful of things about 3.5 (a game, of course, that they themselves developed) that they had grown to want to change as a way of explaining why those changes were made in 4e. Certain people decided that this amounted to bashing. Those people are silly people and need to be a little less painfully uptight.
Except they didn't, really. They highlighted a handful of things about 3.5 (a game, of course, that they themselves developed) that they had grown to want to change as a way of explaining why those changes were made in 4e.
To an extent I agree with you. But to many people the tone taken in some of the designer articles and the 4E promotional material came across (whether it was intended to or not) as the game that youve been playing is broken, too complicated and unfun. Which was echoed by quite a few "fans" who were excited by 4E's impending release. I think that things were brought to a bit of a head by both the perception of what the design team was trying to get across and the rah-rah fans of the new edition baiting and in many cases outright bashing people who enjoyed (and were still enjoying the previous editions). You didnt see a whole lot of that here on the Paizo boards back in those days. But it was RAMPANT on EnWorld and other forums. So much so that for 3.5 and later Pathfinder fans, these boards became a safe haven and a rally point.
I used to LOVE EnWorld. It was a place that I'd visit constantly to find out about 3rd party material and read reviews and just learn about different games. After the 4E rollout? not so much.
Certain people decided that this amounted to bashing. Those people are silly people and need to be a little less painfully uptight.
I dont know Scott, the same could be said about you and your constant need to defend all things WOTC and 4E no matter how small the perceived slight. Not a challenge, just an observation.
As for Gygax, I get the impression he didn't think anything designed by someone other than himself was D&D, so I'm not sure that his view is really one that will prove anyone's point very well. From what I've seen and heard about him, he was a very bitter man in the period that everyone keeps trying pull his quotes from.
If that is reason enough to dismiss his views, well I think we can dismiss many of the people in this very thread. LOL.
You know what? Some people like 4e, some prefer 3.x and Pathfinder. If you don't play both editions, you probably hate one or the other for myriad reasons.No, we don't. In fact, it's fairly rare among 4e players to find someone who actually hates 3.5. Most of us enjoyed it while we were playing it, and then moved on to what we consider a step up when it came around.
I think this is something that a lot of Pathfinder fans (or anti-WotC folk) have a hard time understanding: their attitude of being against a game they don't play rather than simply being for a game they do play is not an attitude shared by most of the gaming community.
Youre right Scott, you never said MOST in relation to talking about 4E fans not disparaging 3.5. I apologize for misstating.
You said "No, we don't. In fact it's fairly rare among 4E players..." I took that as you making a broad statement when you used "we" as most or all 4E player dont...
If I'm mistaken in thinking that could you clarify? Thank you.