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.
I don't think it automatically dismisses his view, but too many people are trying to take his quotes outside of the context they actually happened in and treating them as they are some kind of gospel truth. They aren't automatically wrong, but they aren't automatically right, either. They can be relevant, under the right context, but are not likely to win an argument by themselves.
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.
In this case, I did mean that as a broad statement. I certainly can't back it up, but I feel confident that the majority of 4e players do not hate 3.5 at all. I believe that many of them have no experience with 3.5, either having lapsed during its run or having just started the hobby with 4e. I believe that many of them played 3.5 and enjoyed it while it was there, but then moved on to what they considered the better game (or the better supported game) once 4e was released. And I believe that some (but a relatively small some) actually dislike 3.5 on the whole.
There are tons of 4e players who dislike certain aspects of 3.5. But if you asked them in 2005 if they thought 3.5 was a good game, I believe most of them would have said, "Yeah, sure," and some would have said, "Better than 2e, at least."
Contrast this with the number of Pathfinder players (who do not play 4e) who would say that they don't like 4e on the whole. Wouldn't you agree that the disparity would be quite large, in terms of percentages of each population?
|
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.
Bah - I think that's horsecrap, communities are generally insular by default.
Players are having these same arguements about Warhammer Fantasy Battles 8th ruining 7th right now all over the internet.
Warhammer Fantasy RPG 3rd over 2nd (and more often over 1st).
Star Wars Galaxies vets are having the same argument about Star Wars: The Old Replublic.
Nerd Boys and Nerd Girls are fighting all over the internet about *their* version of something - far from unique.
The only thing insular about any of it is that the RPG'ers don't know that the Videgamer's and the Boardgamer's and the CCG'ers and the LCG'ers and the LARP'ers and the Old Schoolers and the New Schoolers are all also arguing instead of what we should all just being doing - playing.
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.
Funny, I was just told the same thing about Games Workshop and how Privateer Press/Wyrd Miniatures/Spartan Games/.etc can do no wrong.
WOTC did a lot of things regarding 4E, especially at its release, that neither they only just now seem to be realizing just how damaging it was. I don't think any of the pre release material was offensive, personally, but I do see how it could be taken that way with very little effort, and I do think that they made it very clear they didn't care how many bridges they burned in the transition. Expecting everybody to become instant experts of what happened way back in AD&D and earlier in order to understand what they were trying to do when probably half the people playing barely remembered playing 3.0 was also a bit of a stretch. All in all, I don't think they offended all that many people; they just really annoyed a lot of people with their rhetoric and subsequent inability to meet the expectations their own rhetoric had set up.
As for WOTC itself, I have no problem giving credit where credit is due. I am sure that the developers and lower levels of management that actually work on the game are genuinely doing what they can to put out the best system possible within the constraints and expectations established by upper management and Hasbro. It's these constraints and expectations that don't match the market that are truly hurting 4E, along with a lack of a capable PR department, not a lack of caring by those actually working on it.
Lastly, 4E fans are no better or worse than PF fans who are no better or worse than the fans of any other system. I think some of the 4E fans here retain just a touch of defensiveness that isn't required any more, and a handful of PF fans retain a touch of bitterness that isn't helpful, but most people seem to just want to have an honest discussion of both systems that includes both their strengths and their weaknesses, so as to improve both systems and anything that might come after. That means that people on both sides have to occasionally swallow their pride and at least consider arguments for the opposing side. And I can't speak for other forums, but around here, it has definitely become easier to have such a conversation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for WOTC itself, I have no problem giving credit where credit is due. I am sure that the developers and lower levels of management that actually work on the game are genuinely doing what they can to put out the best system possible within the constraints and expectations established by upper management and Hasbro.
Yeah, this.
Look as much as I dont want Mike Mearls anywhere NEAR Pathfinder development, I actually have a fair amount of his work either on my shelf or on PDF. Three Faces of Evil (the 2nd part of the Age of Worms AP) was one of my favorite parts of AOW. It's kind of a meatgrinder but with the right party it was as fun as hell to run. I don't think that they set out to destroy D&D I think that they set out to make a fun game. It's just not a game that I'm interested in playing.
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.And, again, those people are silly. It doesn't reflect poorly on WotC that silly people take their words to mean things that they don't mean.
Let's level the criticism at the appropriate party, hm?
Exactly. Those WotC fans standing in line at the WotC booth at Gen Con 2007 with their passports punched waiting for a chance to roll the huge d20 watching the 4e teaser video running on the screens and wondering "Why is the video only about the bad stuff of 1e, 2e, and 3e? Shouldn't WotC be promoting 4e rather than taking shots at the history of their game?" Those were the silly people and it's appropriate to criticize them. As the contents of the teaser video spread by word of mouth throughout the convention, gamers discussed why the marketing plan was to belittle previous editions. Those were the silly people and it's appropriate to criticize them.
It's important to note the 4e marketing plan was perfect. Anyone who didn't like it must be silly people.
... and knew that I wasnt going to give up 3.5 ...
I thought you said you were playing PF. ;D
Removed some posts and their replies. Please follow the board rules and post civilly, thank you.
|
{3.5e} as the game that youve been playing is broken, too complicated and unfun.
This I agreed with WotC on. My Dungeon Mag, Paizo created, AP was destroyed and made unfun by 3.5e. More rightly by the 'system masters' in the group. One cleric + one druid + two players who mastered the system (as we were told 3e was all about) and I ended up with 3 other very bored players and campaign that never got finished. It was time that 3.5e was put out of it's misery. Pathfinder did this in one way and 4e did it another. Pathfinder attempts to fix the gaps and 4e started anew. Both completely valid methods of taming the rabid beast that 3.5e became. So yes I will happily from my experience as DM for the product life of both 3e and 3.5e say WotC were right to call time on that version of D&D. The only gripe I have with 3e/3.5e was it introduced the system mastery idea which took the hobby and turned it into a professional sport. To bring this back on topic, WotC have for my needs succeeded in the 4e Essentials line. I have NO idea how well Essentials is doing but I hope that WotC retain the format and style. As a DM I want 90% of the PC's choices to be in-game and only 10% in the rule-books. I hate the way my players under 3e/3.5e spent more time discussing feats and 'level dips' than what was likely to happen next session. Seemed like the adventure was a hurdle to getting to the end-game 'build' - for me that ruins my fun as DM.
Horses for courses,
S.
Shouldn't WotC be promoting 4e rather than taking shots at the history of their game?I once mentioned how I liked 2e of all the versions to date and thought things like THAC0 were fine. I got tar & feathered. It's not only WotC personal that throw stones at older D&D.
S.
Most fans aren't overly concerned about how their decisions impact the game they support either. I, and many others, expect the company producing it to be a bit more marketing savvy. I can agree that a replacement system was due, but you don't make the the majority of the preview material about how the old stuff is bad and needs to be replaced without giving specific examples of how you plan on fixing the bad stuff.
I thought the whole 4E debut video was very "tongue and cheek" and laughed because the very same things they were poking fun at were the things that my group were having difficulties doing at the table. For instance, Grapple in 3e/v3.5 is just plain stupid in my opinion. People just can't grapple because of X, Y, and Z variants that so greatly minimizes the chance of actually succeeding and using it as an actual fighting mechanic. Instead, your required to spend multiple feats to actually make the idea feesable, let alone, useful against anything your size. And at higher levels.....well the monsters just get bigger.
So yea, I laughed at how the group poked fun at the older editions and the (at the time) "best rules". Another instance, THAC0. I probably shouldn't say more but I just don't understand the need for the extra math and how ridiculous (again, IMO) having negative numbers can appeal to a player. Not seeing it.
And I feel WotC greatly cares for Dungeons and Dragons, or they wouldn't have even cared to create branch ideas for the game. The big reason I feel the Legends of Drizzt board game, Ravenloft board game, and the other two were created was to think outside the box (pun intended), get other genre people to play, and to get the brand name into big stores like Toys'R'Us and Target where there are no D&D books to be had. So I think D&D is something Hasbro considers worth keeping around, because it nets them more customers who likely will have kids of their own and who will fall into the same genre or branch out into ther Hasbro items like GI-Joe, Transformers, My Little Pony, yadda-yadda.
|
|
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.And, again, those people are silly. It doesn't reflect poorly on WotC that silly people take their words to mean things that they don't mean.
Let's level the criticism at the appropriate party, hm?
Exactly. Those WotC fans standing in line at the WotC booth at Gen Con 2007 with their passports punched waiting for a chance to roll the huge d20 watching the 4e teaser video running on the screens and wondering "Why is the video only about the bad stuff of 1e, 2e, and 3e? Shouldn't WotC be promoting 4e rather than taking shots at the history of their game?" Those were the silly people and it's appropriate to criticize them. As the contents of the teaser video spread by word of mouth throughout the convention, gamers discussed why the marketing plan was to belittle previous editions. Those were the silly people and it's appropriate to criticize them.
+1
Of course thats also me not acknowledging the sarcasm and just looking at your general statement as written.
The preview videos were funny and tongue in cheek to me and I didn't even like 4E for years. I was on the 3.x/Pathfinder bandwagon and even then I still got the humor behind it. If people got offended by it ... somehow it makes it funnier ...
Is there a way to flag posts as 'worthy of moderator attention' on these forums?
Is there a way to flag posts as 'worthy of moderator attention' on these forums?
See the Flag button at the top right of every post.
Is there a way to flag posts as 'worthy of moderator attention' on these forums?See the Flag button at the top right of every post.
Thanks. I can't believe I couldnt find that (I spent an embarrassingly long time looking for it - I mistakenly added the post as a favorite twice..)
Bah - I think that's horsecrap, communities are generally insular by default.
To a degree. Degrees vary. What we see here is one end of the spectrum.
Exactly. Those WotC fans standing in line at the WotC booth at Gen Con 2007 with their passports punched waiting for a chance to roll the huge d20 watching the 4e teaser video running on the screens and wondering "Why is the video only about the bad stuff of 1e, 2e, and 3e? Shouldn't WotC be promoting 4e rather than taking shots at the history of their game?" Those were the silly people and it's appropriate to criticize them. As the contents of the teaser video spread by word of mouth throughout the convention, gamers discussed why the marketing plan was to belittle previous editions. Those were the silly people and it's appropriate to criticize them.
It's important to note the 4e marketing plan was perfect. Anyone who didn't like it must be silly people.
No, you're free to not like it. Being offended by it, though? Silly. Feeling that it attacked your game of choice? Silly. Feeling as though it went out of its way to bash something that the creators of the ad actually created themselves? The height of silliness.
|
Look as much as I dont want Mike Mearls anywhere NEAR Pathfinder development, I actually have a fair amount of his work either on my shelf or on PDF. Three Faces of Evil (the 2nd part of the Age of Worms AP) was one of my favorite parts of AOW. It's kind of a meatgrinder but with the right party it was as fun as hell to run.
I'll second that; all three areas contained some truly challenging terrain features, that made my players work for their survival.
'Victory'? We'll deal with that, after we've got out of this SNAFU, thanks. Of course, I mixed it up with some Snorter Spice, to create some NPCs that still helped and hindered them for many levels after.
Given my experiences with that scenario, I was interested to hear Mearls' plans, that encounters needed to have more active elements. I'm all on board with that.
I was just disappointed that the end result was more about applying effects (that are, IMO) dissociated from the in-game actions, rather than because the terrain/weather/noncombatants were actively applying help and hindrances.
In other words;
Fighting in a gale force wind, where each combatant has to actively maintain their position, or be blown across the map? Oh, yeah.
Having a Str 6 halfling nick a Huge creature for 1hp, and knock it five squares? Not much.
Lastly, 4E fans are no better or worse than PF fans who are no better or worse than the fans of any other system. I think some of the 4E fans here retain just a touch of defensiveness that isn't required any more, and a handful of PF fans retain a touch of bitterness that isn't helpful, but most people seem to just want to have an honest discussion of both systems that includes both their strengths and their weaknesses
But some people label themselves 'foe of 4e' and still post in all the 4e threads.
That means that people on both sides have to occasionally swallow their pride and at least consider arguments for the opposing side
I think the problem is mainly that some people are not making arguments, but constantly state assertions about WotC or 4e without backing them up with evidence or explanations on how they got to their conclusions, and insulting the people working on 4e.
|
|
I actually got to flag a couple of posts for the first time.
Honestly I have to give credit to Scott for taking the time to defend 4e against the slights made against it. I know I don't have that kind of time and only get on these forums like 5 days a week during the third shift hours. Opinions are on thing and all but I do notice an increasing number of people making blanket statements against 4e and it is getting a little worrisome for this community. It's probably all in my head and it might be the same amount as it used to be, only that I've been reading it so much on these threads its beginning to feel that way. Still, it's hardly the majority of these forums, just enough to start giving it a bad taste in my mouth.
As for the layoffs themselves, I wish the people well in their futures but doubt much will change in WotC/D&D land over it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Scott Betts: I think your doing a great job here buddy. I can't post all the time to defend 4E (something that's more prevailantly needed on these boards than others) so keep on fightin' the good fight.
Shouldn't we not be fighting in the first place?
I can't post all the time to defend 4E (something that's more prevailantly needed on these boards than others) so keep on fightin' the good fight.
Why? Why is it needed on these boards more than others?
I don't play 4e. So why would I go to WOTC's Boards just to pick a fight or defend Pathfinder and Paizo there?
So why would I go to WOTC's Boards just to pick a fight or defend Pathfinder and Paizo there?
You might if you were interested in what the 4th edition fans who play pathfinder had to say and had to constantly wade through lots of posts by 4th edition fans who dont play pathfinder.
I mean, I'm not defending picking a fight - my preferred response is to flag posts (now that I know how) and then move on. Nonetheless, it does get tiresome to read through 100+ posts to hear the few tidbits I can glean from Scott, Jeremy Macdonald and the other really knowledgeable and insightful posters here.
Shouldn't we not be fighting in the first place?
@ Scott Betts: I think your doing a great job here buddy. I can't post all the time to defend 4E (something that's more prevailantly needed on these boards than others) so keep on fightin' the good fight.
I tend to agree. I mean if all you have to say is "Edition X is the Sux0r, and that is all I have to say about that".
Well why did you need to post that in the first place? Go to the section of the forum that supports your favourite game and engage in debates there. If you want to make an actual argument regarding your opinion about something in regards to an edition...well that can be very interesting and I'm keen to debate that. As a side benefit the Paizo staff won't have to go through all the trouble of reading and deleting posts and they can get on with more productive activities.
|
|
I can't post all the time to defend 4E (something that's more prevailantly needed on these boards than others) so keep on fightin' the good fight.Why? Why is it needed on these boards more than others?
I don't play 4e. So why would I go to WOTC's Boards just to pick a fight or defend Pathfinder and Paizo there?
Because its not always This or That.
Some people play both.
Also, as I've seen in Scott's case and many others, we still like what Pathfinder does for adventure paths since their storytelling is above what WotC usually does.
It's like if you liked both chocolate ice cream and vanilla, went into a play that sold vanilla ice cream only to have to listen to repeated vocal tirades about how chocolate sucks, is stupid, and only people without brains like it ...
Its reasoning like yours though that always confused me. I don't see how people even think that way. It at least comes across like "this is OUR world and if you're not 100% with us and only us, then get out."
I know this is a very minor point of view shared by this community but it just seems so counterproductive to ... well ... anything.
Shouldn't we not be fighting in the first place?
Your correct, we shouldn't be fighting. And I think 5 pages of this thread shows that there is room for two differences of opinion yet a common ground to work towards. If at the very least to discuss those differences without it turning into a "X"-edition is better or is more like D&D than "Y"-edition. But sometimes people feel the need to express their utter disappointment without any reason for it. Throwing out blanket statements or speaking for others. I've attempted to make it very clear that when I post, I do so based on my own opinion and likes/dislikes. So unless it's expressed directly though the rules, or though someone's quote, or a fact then it's all In MY Opinion (IMO). What that's worth....well this is a forum :).
Why? Why is it needed on these boards more than others?
I don't play 4e. So why would I go to WOTC's Boards just to pick a fight or defend Pathfinder and Paizo there?
Because other boards I visit don't have the sort of vitriol towards 4E specifically and WotC as a whole. I defend those that aren't in the position to defend themselves. I defend 4E to show others that those opinions aren't shared by everyone and to share and provide information that others might not know. I defend 4E because it's a game I really enjoy (along with PF/v3.5/Star Wars/modern d20/Warhammer/etc....) and when people needlessly bash it without any rhyme or reason or make completly untrue statements, I feel the need to step in and correct them in an attempt for a better understanding.
And if you don't play 4E, then why do you post on the 4E thread at Paizo? Or a better question, would you promote/defend/discuss Paizo products on the WotC boards if there were some (I don't honestly know if there are)? If not, then why not? Is it because you feel it's not needed or warrented to create open discussion? Don't you feel the passion for Pathfinder to share your experiences, ideas, thoughts, musings, and (possibly) have to defend that position to those that don't share your view?
I can't post all the time to defend 4E (something that's more prevailantly needed on these boards than others) so keep on fightin' the good fight.Why? Why is it needed on these boards more than others?
I don't play 4e. So why would I go to WOTC's Boards just to pick a fight or defend Pathfinder and Paizo there?
Because its not always This or That.
Some people play both.
Also, as I've seen in Scott's case and many others, we still like what Pathfinder does for adventure paths since their storytelling is above what WotC usually does.
It's like if you liked both chocolate ice cream and vanilla, went into a play that sold vanilla ice cream only to have to listen to repeated vocal tirades about how chocolate sucks, is stupid, and only people without brains like it ...
Its reasoning like yours though that always confused me. I don't see how people even think that way. It at least comes across like "this is OUR world and if you're not 100% with us and only us, then get out."
Please show me where I said that what you just posted.
I asked three questions. And stated nothing that you alluded to in your response. If youre going to put words in my mouth then at least make sure that they are at least close to things that I've said.
Youve basically just done what a few of you have said that people who didnt like the 4E roll out have done. you've seen and reacted to something that wasnt said. Before the post was deleted by the mods (and I'm honestly not sure why it was) I questioned Scott on why he's he's here and EXPRESSLY STATED that he has the right TO be here. So please dont put words in my mouth. Thanks.
The preview videos were funny and tongue in cheek to me and I didn't even like 4E for years. I was on the 3.x/Pathfinder bandwagon and even then I still got the humor behind it. If people got offended by it ... somehow it makes it funnier ...
I don't think they offended as many people as they made people scratch their heads wondering exactly what 4e was actually going to be. Being tongue in cheek is fine, as long as you also include some actual material from the new system. WOTC did the first part well if that was their intent, but they completely failed on the second part, and without the second part, the first part is left open to personal interpretation.
Why? Why is it needed on these boards more than others?
I don't play 4e. So why would I go to WOTC's Boards just to pick a fight or defend Pathfinder and Paizo there?
I defend those that aren't in the position to defend themselves.
WOTC is the 800lb gorilla in the RPG industry. It's the industry LEADER. If WOTC and by extention the 4E designers arent defending themselves it's becasue they dont see the need to, not because they CAN'T. It's like blowing spitballs at a tank.
And if you don't play 4E, then why do you post on the 4E thread at Paizo?
In this particular case I started the thread about the most recent layoffs at WOTC after reading a tweet from MonteCook who I follow on twitter. Typically, I DONT post in the 4E thread. One of the threads that I had posted on before was moved to the 4E section after the fact. But no I typically dont post in the 4E threads on this board.
Or a better question, would you promote/defend/discuss Paizo products on the WotC boards if there were some (I don't honestly know if there are)?
No, because I know that the people who post there are pretty much Pro-4E and anti Pathfinder. What would be the point?
If not, then why not?
See the above. Also? Paizo DOENST need me to defend them. They really dont.
Is it because you feel it's not needed or warrented to create open discussion?
What is the point of open discussion when you have two sides firmly entrenched in thier beliefs that one is out to demonize the other? I've stated time and time again that I dont hate 4E, but it's not a game that I'm interested in playing so I dont really discuss the mechanics and the gameplay any more. Mostly becasue it's been at least 3 years since I last ran a game of it. But somehow I get lumped in with the hardcore haterz becasue I'm on this board. I think most of the people here are interested in PATHFINDER not 4E so they talk about PATHFINDER. I dont think that the 4e hate here is universal or all encompassing and the rabid 4E haterz are a fraction of the community. But there are 4E supporters here who feel comfortable painting the entire community with a broad brush and it's things like that that make me question thier motives for being here.
Don't you feel the passion for Pathfinder to share your experiences, ideas, thoughts, musings, and (possibly) have to defend that position to those that don't share your view?
I do feel a strong passion for Pathfinder. I just express my passion by playing the game that I like and getting other people interested in playing the game in real space. When my group has a good session that makes me feel GREAT and it energizes me to run an even better one the next time. If you dont like Pathfinder and you want to bash it in real space why would I even talk to you? That person is being a jerk for NO REASON.
On the boards? Same thing, you could simply just flag a post and let the mods handle it. They'll usually just delete the offending post and no one is none the wiser. But to engage someone who just makes an off hand comment about your system of choice? To what end? Youre actually just contributing to the problem.
If you and I are having a disscussion about marking in 4E and possible uses of marking in Pathfinder and Scott comes in and attacks me because I said that marking would could be useful but I feel that it's a little to MMOish for my game. Why would I even acknowledge him at that point when it's going to completely derail what you and I are talking about? Just flag his post and keep it moving.
|
|
As for the layoffs themselves, I wish the people well in their futures but doubt much will change in WotC/D&D land over it.
I don't think much will change for WotC either - I believe they are intrigued by the additional revenue streams, like boardgames, that the IP itself provides them.
Here's what I think:
WotC for better or worse, announced 4E during a time where it was bad to lose an RPG customer. I think a big appeal for Pathfinder initially was that had there not been a supported alternative to 4E on the market, alot of people would have stopped playing the hobby or moved on to other elements of it.
Read what I said - supported. People, in general, like to buy new shiny things. I think we can all agree that 4E fractured the player, designer, publisher base.
Which brings up my next point, 4E's GSL had an interesting ripple effect. It forced alot of designers to look at other systems whether Pathfinder, FATE, Dragon Age, any number of OSR releases, Savage Worlds, etc., that were available to support their ideas.
Alot of those systems are going strong; Dragon Age sells like gangbusters, Dresden Files is winning awards left right and center, Pathfinder speaks for itself in these parts ...
Which brings me back to here's what I hope:
All those really good people that WotC loses, I hope they move on to all the other GREAT publishers and systems and we get to see their work shine outside of the confines of D&D.
|
|
Bah - I think that's horsecrap, communities are generally insular by default.To a degree. Degrees vary. What we see here is one end of the spectrum.
C'mon - that's just being a bit pedantic. I could have just as easily said the sky was blue, and your response suggests we should then debate the actual hue of said blue to determine if in fact it is real blue. Of course it's degrees, it's always degrees.
I'm wondering why everyone is always so surprised that the "spectrum" leans so heavily to one side here?
Communities generally form around a common interest, in this case - the Pathfinder Product line. Birds of a feather and all that.
I think the reason you don't see the Pathfinder people all coming into the WotC woodwork to extol the virtues of PF and decry the bile that is 4E* is because they are all here, debating amongst themselves. WHY!? Would anyone who is a hardcore fan of PF go anywhere else? Where is the other PF communities?
There are dozens of "D&D" communities if you look hard enough, and frankly, I think alot of PF fans can't be bothered to go to them anymore. I know I certainly don't go anywhere near Enworld anymore, RPG.net, or the rest. The majority of traditional sites still strongly support 4E primarily, and as a system I and many other PF fans don't play, have no reason to go there and hangout with the fans of another system.
This whole thing just blows my mind - if I walk into a pro-Boston Bruins bar with my Vancouver Canucks jersey on, I expect to get dirty looks and hopefully some good-natured ribbing, it comes with the territory of being a fan, but we can all still agree to love hockey.
*exaggeration for effect.
Paizo allows the discussion of 4e, but then you guys write threads like "Why do people not like 4e" and someone gives reasoned criticism, someone attacks them for it. We aren't allowed to not like 4e, even in a thread about why we don't like 4e.
Three things.
First, geting mad at WotC for being "corporate evil dudes" is pretty funny. Let's look at the past owners of D&D.
There was Williams who kicked out Gygax and ran TSR into the ground while insulting and sueing gamers left and right.
She saved D&D from...
...The Blumes! There were an awful lot of them on the payroll, with a whole lot of kickbacks going on. They ALSO ran TSR into the ground.
They were given D&D by a thief named...
...Gary Gygax! Who worked hard to eliminate any royalty checks being send to Arneson, who, incidentally, most likely had more to hand in creating D&D then Gygax himself did.
So ok, WotC is owned by Hasbro. Looking through the past owners of D&D...are they really that awful?
Second, every new edition has insulted the last. Every single new edition has. 3e insulted the hell out of 2e when it came out (and a good deal of other games, too!) 2e and Basic were at each others' throats for awhile. And yeah, 4e made jokes about 3e. What's the difference? THE INTERNET!
See, before, when people got outraged over dumb stuff that doesn't matter, they'd sit and simmer in it awhile and either a) Got over it and stopped being such g&%$&@n nerds, or b) Wrote angrily to Dragon lots, and lots, and lots of times, usually not published once. Nowadays we have THE INTERNET! Now our petty irritations can be enflamed into open anger with ease, and niche, closeminded communities can band together like never before!
Mind you, it's not just D&D that this has happened to. THE INTERNET has in quite a few ways fostered a new era of tribalism and pettiness! Thanks, THE INTERNET!
And lastly, regarding the GSL, ok. It ain't as open as the OGL, sure. I can cop to that. But the GSL is still one of the most open licenses in the freaking industry. You think the GSL is bad? Try wanting to publish third party for just about any game out there. Try doing it with White Wolf. Or Palladium. See how well that works. Yeah, the GSL isn't as good as the OGL, but it's not the Stalin Hitler mcPol Pot version of licenses. It's a delicious cupcake compared to a delicious cake.
|
Three things.
First, geting mad at WotC for being "corporate evil dudes" is pretty funny. Let's look at the past owners of D&D.
There was Williams who kicked out Gygax and ran TSR into the ground while insulting and sueing gamers left and right.
She saved D&D from...
...The Blumes! There were an awful lot of them on the payroll, with a whole lot of kickbacks going on. They ALSO ran TSR into the ground.
They were given D&D by a thief named...
...Gary Gygax! Who worked hard to eliminate any royalty checks being send to Arneson, who, incidentally, most likely had more to hand in creating D&D then Gygax himself did.
So ok, WotC is owned by Hasbro. Looking through the past owners of D&D...are they really that awful?
Second, every new edition has insulted the last. Every single new edition has. 3e insulted the hell out of 2e when it came out (and a good deal of other games, too!) 2e and Basic were at each others' throats for awhile. And yeah, 4e made jokes about 3e. What's the difference? THE INTERNET!
See, before, when people got outraged over dumb stuff that doesn't matter, they'd sit and simmer in it awhile and either a) Got over it and stopped being such g@&$#+n nerds, or b) Wrote angrily to Dragon lots, and lots, and lots of times, usually not published once. Nowadays we have THE INTERNET! Now our petty irritations can be enflamed into open anger with ease, and niche, closeminded communities can band together like never before!
Mind you, it's not just D&D that this has happened to. THE INTERNET has in quite a few ways fostered a new era of tribalism and pettiness! Thanks, THE INTERNET!
And lastly, regarding the GSL, ok. It ain't as open as the OGL, sure. I can cop to that. But the GSL is still one of the most open licenses in the freaking industry. You think the GSL is bad? Try wanting to publish third party for just about any game out there. Try doing it with White Wolf. Or Palladium. See how well that works. Yeah, the GSL isn't as good as the OGL,...
I love your argumentation, as usual. You really should consider a career in law. Or anywhere where any attention to logic is important.
"So you say Soviet Russia was bad? Well, look at Imperial Russia. It was bad was well! DUNUNUHUH."
"So okay, waterboarding is bad. But hey, pulling out fingernails is WORSE. So let's stop talking about waterboarding, because there are worse things out there, OKAY?"
|
|
See, before, when people got outraged over dumb stuff that doesn't matter, they'd sit and simmer in it awhile and either a) Got over it and stopped being such g%*$+&n nerds, or b) Wrote angrily to Dragon lots, and lots, and lots of times, usually not published once. Nowadays we have THE INTERNET! Now our petty irritations can be enflamed into open anger with ease, and niche, closeminded communities can band together like never before!
Mind you, it's not just D&D that this has happened to. THE INTERNET has in quite a few ways fostered a new era of tribalism and pettiness! Thanks, THE INTERNET!
Very good point!
WOTC is the 800lb gorilla in the RPG industry. It's the industry LEADER. If WOTC and by extention the 4E designers arent defending themselves it's becasue they dont see the need to, not because they CAN'T. It's like blowing spitballs at a tank.
Correct, and they do that rather well over on the WotC boards. I've yet to see any designers here contribute to the 4E discussions. Maybe it's because they're busy with something else. Maybe it's because they don't feel welcome so they don't bother, or maybe it's because they're asked not to by their employer. I don't really know, but that's not the point. The point is they're not here (on the Paizo-site, 4E threads specifically) to defend why they made the decisions they did or why the felt 4E should go in the direction they did. But I am, so I defend my reasons which I feel might coincide with their own.
No, because I know that the people who post there are pretty much Pro-4E and anti Pathfinder. What would be the point?
What's the point of any message board? To gather information, share knowledge, and debate on topics that are to your liking. If there was a Specific Pathfinder messageboard on WotC, then I'd probably spend time there as well, defending Pathfinder if the need arises or else discuss the great stuff Pathfinder is. Sure, it might create anti-Paizo stuff but that's what Moderators are for.
Also? Paizo DOENST need me to defend them. They really dont.
I never clamed you did need to. I DON'T have to defend WotC or 4E, I choose to do so because I can. In my own illustrious words: "I do what I want." I like sticking up for them because I feel it's warrented here. Becuase if I don't, people who play Pathfinder and want to know about 4E might possibly come here and....well I'd like to give them a positive view instead of a constant nay-saying or people depicting "4E = MMO" or "4E is not real D&D" as fact instead of opinions.
What is the point of open discussion when you have two sides firmly entrenched in thier beliefs that one is out to demonize the other? I've stated time and time again that I dont hate 4E, but it's not a game that I'm interested in playing so I dont really discuss the mechanics and the gameplay any more. Mostly becasue it's been at least 3 years since I last ran a game of it. But somehow I get lumped in with the hardcore haterz becasue I'm on this board. I think most of the people here are interested in PATHFINDER not 4E so they talk about PATHFINDER. I dont think that the 4e hate here is universal or all encompassing and the rabid 4E haterz are a fraction of the community. But there are 4E supporters here who feel comfortable painting the entire community with a broad brush and it's things like that that make me question thier motives for being here.
Yes, the majority of people who post on Paizo messageboards are more interested in Pathfinder and possibly 3e/v3.5 than 4E, no arguments there. But I'm assuming that on the 4E threads, the good majority of people that post here are 4E fans or at least sympathizers. And I'd not pigeon-hold the whole of the Paizo community as 4E haters nor would I do the same on the WotC-boards as Paizo haters. There's a very vocal minority of the two which spoil the lot IMO. But in all honesty, if your not interested in 4E or the people who post here, then why worry what some of them think of the Paizo commuity at large? Who cares if they all think the Pathfinder community is a bunch of 4E-haterz and all that?
I do feel a strong passion for Pathfinder. I just express my passion by playing the game that I like and getting other people interested in playing the game in real space. When my group has a good session that makes me feel GREAT and it energizes me to run an even better one the next time. If you dont like Pathfinder and you want to bash it in real space why would I even talk to you? That person is being a jerk for NO REASON.On the boards? Same thing, you could simply just flag a post and let the mods handle it. They'll usually just delete the offending post and no one is none the wiser. But to engage someone who just makes an off hand comment about your system of choice? To what end? Youre actually just contributing to the problem.
This is probably a reason why you don't post much on the 4E forums, because you'd rather not get caught in the quagmire of the Edition Wars, so to that I think it's smart. But if your only interested in talking about Pathfinder in real space, then why even bother with the messageboards to begin with? As to letting the Mods handle it? I don't flag anyone for anything. I don't feel it's necessary because, really, I can't get that mad over what something thinks or says (unless it's blatant untruths or straight out lying).
If you and I are having a disscussion about marking in 4E and possible uses of marking in Pathfinder and Scott comes in and attacks me because I said that marking would could be useful but I feel that it's a little to MMOish for my game. Why would I even acknowledge him at that point when it's going to completely derail what you and I are talking about? Just flag his post and keep it moving.
Fair enough, but Scott (or whoever) is entitled to their own opinion of your opinion. The fact that he finds it silly isn't a slight against you, just the reason for your opinion. I'm sure people think my opinions on hating THAC0 (and the whole of 2E/AD&D rules) are silly but whatever. I don't let it get to me or make me flag someone for someone's disagreement.