ProfessorCirno |
memorax wrote:It's easy to say if you respond back your being an edition warrior. which I find to BS, a copout and as another posters has pointed out thats like saying your criminal for trying to stop a criminal. Does it help either side no. Neither should it be ignored.You can think that it's BS all you want. It still doesn't change the fact that YOU ARE engaging in edition warring when you respond to being baited. Or you respond aggressively to something that may or may not be a slight vs your game of choice. YOU ARE ACTIVELY ENGAGING in a behavior. You're making a decision to do so when you can simply flag the post and ignore it and move on. I understand how you feel, really. But it doesn't change the fact that you make a decision to either ignore the fray or jump head first into it.
I love this logic because of how openly honest it is of how edition wars work.
Namely, it isn't an edition war until the 4e fans gets tired of being bashed.
Kuma |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love this logic because of how openly honest it is of how edition wars work.
Namely, it isn't an edition war until the 4e fans gets tired of being bashed.
Except that, in my admittedly quick skim of the 108 posts since I last visited this thread, I haven't seen anyone "bash" 4th ed. players. Bashing of 4th ed. isn't the same thing as bashing its players. And I've seen quite a bit of "bashing those who bash 4th ed" which is a good deal less mature than the bashing of 4th ed, imo. And now the word bash has lost all meaning for me. Bash.
Frankly, the only reason I mentioned 4th in my own earlier post was because someone said not to and after double-checking it turned out they were not the boss of me.
And I made a phone call a little while ago and heard that most of the gamers I knew in my last city refer to Pathfinder as Pathfinder. But they didn't stop playing 3.5 for a couple of years after Paizo started publishing.
Kthulhu |
stuff
I'm talking about the underlying system. That's not changed by adding additional equipment or classes. Otherwise, Pathfinder is a radically different game than Pathfinder + APG. The underlying system of pre-3E games was essentially the same. So yeah, switching over to different game system (d20) IS a bigger change. Most of the other difference you brought up are really just terminology.
At any rate, my point is that crying "4E isn't D&D" while supporting 3.X as the "true D&D" is remarkably silly, since 3.X was is also a far cry from the origins of D&D.
memorax |
You can think that it's BS all you want. It still doesn't change the fact that YOU ARE engaging in edition warring when you respond to being baited. Or you respond aggressively to something that may or may not be a slight vs your game of choice. YOU ARE ACTIVELY ENGAGING in a behavior. You're making a decision to do so when you can simply flag the post and ignore it and move on. I understand how you feel, really. But it doesn't change the fact that you make a decision to either ignore the fray or jump head first into it.
For the longest time I have tried to ignore it and I'm reaching a point where I'm tired of hearing it. It's to the point where the boards themselves are getting a reputation in the gaming world. That is not a good thing. And it does not look like it will stop. Not unless Paizo gets more strict on the issue. Ignoring it is not a solution because if no one ever says anything it will just keep happening over and over again. I fail to see how ignoring it will solve anything.
As for the logic of saying that it's the system not the players being bashed to me that it's the same thing. A poster may not target me for playing 4E he/she is still bashing a game I like. I fail to see how that is so much better. Why would I be bothered less. It's still trashing something I like.
Steve Geddes |
ShinHakkaider wrote:For the longest time I have tried to ignore it and I'm reaching a point where I'm tired of hearing it. It's to the point where the boards themselves are getting a reputation in the gaming world. That is not a good thing. And it does not look like it will stop. Not unless Paizo gets more strict on the issue. Ignoring it is not a solution because if no one ever says anything it will just keep happening over and over again. I fail to see how ignoring it will solve anything.You can think that it's BS all you want. It still doesn't change the fact that YOU ARE engaging in edition warring when you respond to being baited. Or you respond aggressively to something that may or may not be a slight vs your game of choice. YOU ARE ACTIVELY ENGAGING in a behavior. You're making a decision to do so when you can simply flag the post and ignore it and move on. I understand how you feel, really. But it doesn't change the fact that you make a decision to either ignore the fray or jump head first into it.
I realize this is unsolicited and perhaps not terribly useful advice. Nonetheless, I'd recommend not responding to it, but, that doesn't mean ignoring it. I've recently begun utilizing the flag feature and just about every time I have, the post and any follow up replies have been removed within 24 hours. The few where they have remained up is no doubt just a difference of opinion between Paizo's moderators and me as to what's acceptable and what isn't. Let's face it - that call is entirely theirs to make.
I guess what I'm suggesting is that, even if you're right as to the reputation of these forums - vigilant, public responding by those of us who who object isn't really going to help. It's up to paizo to present an impression they are comfortable with. The most constructive thing we can do is to assist them by silently flagging those posts we think are a bad look and trusting them to adjudicate the matter appropriately.
Arevashti |
Except that, in my admittedly quick skim of the 108 posts since I last visited this thread, I haven't seen anyone "bash" 4th ed. players. Bashing of 4th ed. isn't the same thing as bashing its players. And I've seen quite a bit of "bashing those who bash 4th ed" which is a good deal less mature than the bashing of 4th ed, imo. And now the word bash has lost all meaning for me. Bash.
Trust me; this thread is relatively tame, compared to some of the behavior I've seen at other fora. And considering what was being counted as "bashing" systems (and therefore, was treated as justification for being rude), I can see how the word would start to lose its meaning. :P
LazarX |
Right now, it seems like a lot of people are afraid to even hint at bringing up 4E, even when it's legitimate in the context of topic, for fear of starting a firestorm on both sides; that's not a healthy atmosphere.
I generally don't bring up 4th edition in discussion of Pathfinder... because there's no useful point in doing so. They are very different games and the few similarities between them don't add anything helpful to a discussion to justify the almost certainty of derailing the thread to another mindless edition rant.
Keep in mind that at this point, I consider Pathfinder to be substantially different from 3.5 as well.
spaceLem |
Yes, because PF is heir to the house that Gary and Dave built, not 4th edition.
We'll never know what they thought of 4e (Gary died before it came out, Dave shortly after, but I've never seen anything he had to say about it), so I don't think you can really say that.
We do know that Gary had no interest in 3e and nothing good to say about it (when asked his opinion he'd just say that it was WotC's game now), so I doubt he'd be that interested in Pathfinder either.
To answer the original question: no. If someone asked me what I was doing, if I'd just say roleplaying. If the exact game was important or interesting, I would say Pathfinder, and if I was playing D&D I refer to the edition.
Ross Byers RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32 |
ShinHakkaider wrote:You can think that it's BS all you want. It still doesn't change the fact that YOU ARE engaging in edition warring when you respond to being baited. Or you respond aggressively to something that may or may not be a slight vs your game of choice. YOU ARE ACTIVELY ENGAGING in a behavior. You're making a decision to do so when you can simply flag the post and ignore it and move on. I understand how you feel, really. But it doesn't change the fact that you make a decision to either ignore the fray or jump head first into it.
For the longest time I have tried to ignore it and I'm reaching a point where I'm tired of hearing it. It's to the point where the boards themselves are getting a reputation in the gaming world. That is not a good thing. And it does not look like it will stop. Not unless Paizo gets more strict on the issue. Ignoring it is not a solution because if no one ever says anything it will just keep happening over and over again. I fail to see how ignoring it will solve anything.
As for the logic of saying that it's the system not the players being bashed to me that it's the same thing. A poster may not target me for playing 4E he/she is still bashing a game I like. I fail to see how that is so much better. Why would I be bothered less. It's still trashing something I like.
Responding guaranteeing that it will not stop, because you're perpetuating the discussion. If you feel the need to do something to make it stop, FLAG IT and move on.
DigitalMage |
Wow, I find it really weird that some people use the term D&D as a generic term of roleplaying, be that Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu or indeed Pathfinder. For me that is like using Coke not just to refer to all types of cola, but to also refer to all types of soft drinks, from orange juice, to milk shakes to iced tea :)
AS for the threadjack...
And made me avoid making an arse of myself by swearing off trying to GM PFS and purchasing several PF books because I wasn't liking the community - and then going back on that later when I calmed down and realise that the PFS players I have actually encountered in real life are nice people who don't make me wish to leave the organised play campaign, so I should just ignore the annoying haters on the internet.
Gorbacz |
Wow, I find it really weird that some people use the term D&D as a generic term of roleplaying, be that Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu or indeed Pathfinder. For me that is like using Coke not just to refer to all types of cola, but to also refer to all types of soft drinks, from orange juice, to milk shakes to iced tea :)
AS for the threadjack...
** spoiler omitted **
In the US, "soda" refers to any carbonated soft drink.
If you walk into a bar and ask for "Cola" (something that's normal in Europe), you'll get the funny looks.
Same with RPGs. For a vast majority of US population, sitting at a table and rolling strange dice means it's "D&D", regardless of the actual game being played.
That's why the whole "is XXX D&D?" topic holds so much importance over the pond, since it's a generic term for RPGs.
BPorter |
I call Pathfinder by its name.
Once upon a time, any RPG session was referred to as D&D - it was the generic catch-all for RPGs.
However, since then, RPG has come to mean something outside of tabletop gaming. With the mainstream video game culture, most people have some idea of what a RPG is vs. a first-person-shooter. Then there's Warcraft. I'm not calling Warcraft a RPG, but it's certainly broadened the exposure of RPG tropes and concepts.
Even taking all of that, I'd probably still refer to tabletop RPGing as "D&D" if not for the fact that once I started running Pathfinder for my kids, "D&D" went by the wayside for Pathfinder for the following reasons:
1. That's the name and it avoids confusing them. "Why do you call it D&D if it's called Pathfinder, Dad?"
2. Paizo's direction of the game is the one I wish to see grow in influence and brand awareness. I wish to support them by helping to increase the name recognition of Pathfinder.
3. If/when other kids play Pathfinder with my kids and are looking for their "gateway game", I'd like to make it easier for their non-gamer parents to buy the game their kids want.
DeathQuaker RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8 |
I try to say Pathfinder, but often default to D&D when I'm not really thinking about it--or explaining quickly to someone what my plans are for a day if they wouldn't know what Pathfinder was (or say "Pathfinder--it's like D&D"). In part because my first Pathfinder campaign began as a D&D 3.x campaign where we converted halfway through, so it WAS both my D&D campaign and my Pathfinder campaign.
Gendo |
I haven't read this entire thread, but as to the OP - it doesn't matter if the system used is a pre-d20 system game or post d20 ruleset game - be it Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, Pathfinder, 3E/3.5E/4E DnD, retro-clones, E6, microlite rules, or non-d20 based games such as Savage Worlds, Mouse Guard, and so forth...if it is a fantsy-based, sword and sorcery, angels and demons, human and demi-human and/or anthromorphic intelligent animals filled setting, it's all DnD to me. The system is just a dresing for the same imaginary backdrop. All of the systems have the same commonalities - warriors capable of amazing feats of strength and combat prowess, arcane spell slingers bending the rules of reality to their will, priests that preach the word of their god by word or spell or the business end of a mace (or whatever weapon appropriate to their faith), rogues and scoundrels that are as likely to pilfer and skulk as they are to hit you where it hurts all set in a pre-modern setting of empires, city-states, and vast unexplored ranges of land with populated with all manner of danger. At the heart of it all is the battle of good against evil, whether it is as dramatic and epic as preventing Orcus from destroying the world or as down to earth as working to correct poverty, destitution, and famine, or even the itnernal conflict of flawed adventurers trying to make the best choice for themselves and those they care about in a world where one choice isn't really any better than the another.
sunshadow21 |
sunshadow21 wrote:Right now, it seems like a lot of people are afraid to even hint at bringing up 4E, even when it's legitimate in the context of topic, for fear of starting a firestorm on both sides; that's not a healthy atmosphere.I generally don't bring up 4th edition in discussion of Pathfinder... because there's no useful point in doing so. They are very different games and the few similarities between them don't add anything helpful to a discussion to justify the almost certainty of derailing the thread to another mindless edition rant.
Keep in mind that at this point, I consider Pathfinder to be substantially different from 3.5 as well.
To me it depends on the context of the discussion. If you are talking strictly about the existing ruleset, than 4E has no place, but in the wider picture of what the ruleset and the game as a whole, with all of its accessories, distribution method, etc, can or should become, or even wider topics like this, 4E can have a legitimate part of the discussion. Learning from both WotC and 4E's successes and failures, as well as those of any other major company in the industry, is important if Paizo and Pathfinder are going to remain strong in the future.
memorax |
It all depends on the topic. Some topics lend to discussions about 4E along with approriate topics. Not when it's some totally unrelated topic and someone just has to toss some anti-4E stuff into the mix because he or she can. Discussing a topic is one thing. Shaking the Nitro is another so to speak.
sunshadow21 |
It all depends on the topic. Some topics lend to discussions about 4E along with approriate topics. Not when it's some totally unrelated topic and someone just has to toss some anti-4E stuff into the mix because he or she can. Discussing a topic is one thing. Shaking the Nitro is another so to speak.
Too bad people can't agree on when it's just discussing a topic and when it's shaking the nitro. Resolving that part would remove most of the problems.