It's "detailed" remember? Of course it would need a thousand posts.
The OP is no doubt ruminating on all the salient points which have been brought up and discussed in such an analytical and objective fashion. Any day now, he'll pop in with a follow up...
Also, one has to admit that comparing 4E to an MMO in light of Pathfinder actually producing an MMO in their image is rather funny, if not a bit hypocritical.Again, in this thread, I find the comments like that to be the hypocritical ones.
They aren't making a Pathfinder RPG MMO.
A month ago, I would say that it would be considered laughable if someone used the existence of D&D Online as proof of 4th edition's MMO-ness. I do not believe that most of the people here would even consider that as a serious comparison.
It isn't a serious comparison as D&D-online uses 3.5 ruleset and not 4E's ruleset. The two only share the name D&D, and....well that's pretty much it rules wise.
For your statement to be true, either D&D Online had to be the entire argument from people doing the comparison (which isn't true) or the existence of on MMO based on your other products is anything like valid evidence for saying that those products are obviously more MMO-like (which up until now has found no ground in this sub-forum).Also, while it doesn't completely negate the chance of the game starting in Sandpoint, reading the actual FAQ about the game show that the online world is focusing on an area several countries away from Sandpoint.
I'm glad to hear that it's focusing more on other regions of Golarion. I mention Sandpoint because it feels as if every Adventure Path starts there. Sorta repetitive IMO. As for my statement having truth, you don't find it funny that a certain amount of people call 4E an "MMO-game that uses paper" yet when the system they prefer goes out and makes an MMO based off their own system/setting a tad hypocritical? I mean, just a tad?
This doesn't mean that Pathfinder is an MMO (I'm not saying that) but I find it funny that 4E was (so people say) infused with a lot of MMO properties yet there hasn't been a style of game designed with that edition rules. Yet Pathfinder, OTOH, does have a MMORPG going out. So a clear line, from my POV, could easily be drawn that mechanics that support Pathfinder can also support MMOs thus making Pathfinder more MMO like* than 4E.
*Note: I said it makes it seem "like" an MMO, not that it factually IS one.
|
I'm glad to hear that it's focusing more on other regions of Golarion. I mention Sandpoint because it feels as if every Adventure Path starts there. Sorta repetitive IMO.
There are 9 published APs, with 1 in the works. ONLY 2 of which start the PCs in Sandpoint...
If 2 out of 10 is repetitive, then I must be missing something...
Also, one has to admit that comparing 4E to an MMO in light of Pathfinder actually producing an MMO in their image is rather funny, if not a bit hypocritical.Again, in this thread, I find the comments like that to be the hypocritical ones.
They aren't making a Pathfinder RPG MMO.
A month ago, I would say that it would be considered laughable if someone used the existence of D&D Online as proof of 4th edition's MMO-ness. I do not believe that most of the people here would even consider that as a serious comparison.
For your statement to be true, either D&D Online had to be the entire argument from people doing the comparison (which isn't true) or the existence of on MMO based on your other products is anything like valid evidence for saying that those products are obviously more MMO-like (which up until now has found no ground in this sub-forum).
One of the many accusations directed at 4E is that it was designed intentionally to translate seamlessly to an eventual video game incarnation. Now that there will be two separate MMOs based on the 3.X rule set, while no such game has yet been announced for 4E, those accusations look both laughable and hypocritical.
For what it’s worth, while DDO is based on the 3.5 system, it is most definitely “loosely” based on 3.5. And it sounds like the Pathfinder MMO is more “Golarion MMO” than “Pathfinder RPG MMO”. Personally, I think it’s asinine to level accusations at any PnP RPG because of video game associations.
I removed some edition wars bait.
It isn't a serious comparison as D&D-online uses 3.5 ruleset and not 4E's ruleset. The two only share the name D&D, and....well that's pretty much it rules wise.Also, one has to admit that comparing 4E to an MMO in light of Pathfinder actually producing an MMO in their image is rather funny, if not a bit hypocritical.Again, in this thread, I find the comments like that to be the hypocritical ones.
They aren't making a Pathfinder RPG MMO.
A month ago, I would say that it would be considered laughable if someone used the existence of D&D Online as proof of 4th edition's MMO-ness. I do not believe that most of the people here would even consider that as a serious comparison.
I admit that prior to this I hadn't paid any attention to the system D&D Online uses and that even now I've only read a small bit about it. So this is news ot me.
I'm glad to hear that it's focusing more on other regions of Golarion. I mention Sandpoint because it feels as if every Adventure Path starts there. Sorta repetitive IMO. As for my statement having truth, you don't find it funny that a certain amount of people call 4E an "MMO-game that uses paper" yet when the system they prefer goes out and makes an MMO based off their own system/setting a tad hypocritical? I mean, just a tad?
This doesn't mean that Pathfinder is an MMO (I'm not saying that) but I find it funny that 4E was (so people say) infused with a lot of MMO properties yet there hasn't been a style of game designed with that edition rules. Yet Pathfinder, OTOH, does have a...
To be honest, it doesn't seem hypocritical, but that may be in part because you and others are proposing this argument in this specific thread where I would say that the community in this subforum had very different reactions to people who posted misinformation about 4th/WotC edition and others that posted misinformation about Paizo/Pathfinder (as in one side was very heavily defended and the other was, in my opinion, ignored).
Even without that though, even if 4E doesn't have a style of game designed with that edition's rules, from the barest bits that have been released, your inference that Pathfinder Online will be a game designed with that Pathfinder RPG's rules is currently incorrect. For right now at the very least, Pathfinder Online isn't going to be using the OGL, rather, it will be using a skill system for developing characters.
Both you and Sebastrd mention there being no recent MMO game for D&D (specifically 4th edition). Obviously I was off base with D&D Online, but what about Neverwinter? From what I can tell that is a upcoming MMO for D&D, why isn't that being counted here?
One of the many accusations directed at 4E is that it was designed intentionally to translate seamlessly to an eventual video game incarnation. Now that there will be two separate MMOs based on the 3.X rule set, while no such game has yet been announced for 4E, those accusations look both laughable and hypocritical.
What are the two MMOs based on the 3.X rule set? D&D Online is definitely one, but I'm not familiar with the second. I thought you were talking about Pathfinder Online until your second paragraph where you clearly seem to understand that Pathfinder Online current intention to not use the Pathfinder RPG system.
|
Anyone want to compare the OP to this?
Did you use the Wayback Machine or the Tardis to find this? ;=)
|
Actually I was searching for 2E discussions when I found this thread. You should write up a rant about it for me, maybe as a Facebook note. ;)
|
|
Actually I was searching for 2E discussions when I found this thread. You should write up a rant about it for me, maybe as a Facebook note. ;)
Let me read that thread. A rant will give me something to do tonight. :=)
I'm glad to hear that it's focusing more on other regions of Golarion. I mention Sandpoint because it feels as if every Adventure Path starts there. Sorta repetitive IMO.There are 9 published APs, with 1 in the works. ONLY 2 of which start the PCs in Sandpoint...
If 2 out of 10 is repetitive, then I must be missing something...
Hahaha, would you believe that the two I've played were probably the ones your taking about (Rise of the Runelords and Jade Regent). But I'm at fault for applying my limited experience with Paizo's APs to the general statement I made earlier. Apologies for generalizing.
To be honest, it doesn't seem hypocritical, but that may be in part because you and others are proposing this argument in this specific thread where I would say that the community in this subforum had very different reactions to people who posted misinformation about 4th/WotC edition and others that posted misinformation about Paizo/Pathfinder (as in one side was very heavily defended and the other was, in my opinion, ignored).
Even without that though, even if 4E doesn't have a style of game designed with that edition's rules, from the barest bits that have been released, your inference that Pathfinder Online will be a game designed with that Pathfinder RPG's rules is currently incorrect. For right now at the very least, Pathfinder Online isn't going to be using the OGL, rather, it will be using a skill system for developing characters.
That was news to me as I assumed PF would be using their own rules to supplant the MMO system. If they're not, well then this whole discussion is rather moot as neither Paizo or WotC/4E can be directly tied to MMOs and thus, the argument falls apart.
Both you and Sebastrd mention there being no recent MMO game for D&D (specifically 4th edition). Obviously I was off base with D&D Online, but what about Neverwinter? From what I can tell that is a upcoming MMO for D&D, why isn't that being counted here?
Because it hasn't been released and we're not sure what the rules will be based off of. If the company is smart, they'll stick to a more generic game-engine akin to WoW or Guild Wars as the interface is probably easier to use and what not. This, and 4E's penchant for loads of Out-of-Turn attacks really makes or breaks some classes. For example, the Ranger's repitoire of Immediate Action and Free Action attacks are the reason it's the best Striker in 4E. Take that away, and it becomes considerably less so. I've found that MMOs and CRPGs don't use these Out-of-Turn attacks very well in their systems and causes Gliches.
So while I think a lot of cool stuff can be gleaned from 4E's powers and class features of classes, I hope it's not a full conversion from Pen/Paper to Computer/Consol as I think it would be disastrous.
With PF online the 4E detracters can no longer point to 4e and go "they turned 4E into an MMO" when it's closest competitor has done the same. Kind of hypocritical imo.
It would be hypocritical to say that NOW. You can not bee hypocritical retroactively.
The claim isn't usually that WoTC made a computer game based on 4E (as Paizo are trying to do with PF). It was that MMO design impacted heavily on the 4E rules development. The new announcement isn't really analogous, IMO.Let's be honest, the claim is that 4e is BAD and you know what else is bad VIDEO GAMES they're for people without imaginations (SOUND FAMILIAR 4e FANS?) so 4e is just a VIDEO GAME.
Not true.
I love video games. Skyrim has broken up my Roleplaying group for a few weeks.
I just happen to dislike 4e. I like video games MUCH more.
I never liked hearing the 4E was an MMO comments either. While it's true that I'm not being fair comparing the PF online to the same thing well none of the 4E detractors were fair to my rpg either. From now on if someone says 4E is like an MMO now I can say that Pathfindr has one too.
While I admit it is hypocritical of me for doing so nothing stopped the anti-4E faction from using any excuse to stir up some anti-4E in any thread on any subject. It got to the point where I had to include a no anti-4e clause in some of my threads. Still it is being unfair. That being said I already see people who like PF complaining that it's not going to be like the tabletop game and I would not be surprised to see PF supports complain that the now made PF an mmo.
Congratulations on being able to say that PF has an MMO! I for one am glad they went ahead with the step. It will make the Pathfinder brand all the more prominent. That is why I am happy about it.
Again, in this thread, I find the comments like that to be the hypocritical ones.
They aren't making a Pathfinder RPG MMO.
It isn't a serious comparison as D&D-online uses 3.5 ruleset and not 4E's ruleset. The two only share the name D&D, and....well that's pretty much it rules wise.
I'm glad to hear that it's focusing more on other regions of Golarion. I mention Sandpoint because it feels as if every Adventure Path starts there. Sorta repetitive IMO. As for my statement having truth, you don't find it funny that a certain amount of people call 4E an "MMO-game that uses paper" yet when the system they prefer goes out and makes an MMO based off their own system/setting a tad hypocritical? I mean, just a tad?
This doesn't mean that Pathfinder is an MMO (I'm not saying that) but I find it funny that 4E was (so people say) infused with a lot of MMO properties yet there hasn't been a style of game designed with that edition rules. Yet Pathfinder, OTOH, does have a...
One cannot be hypocritical because a third party does something they would not do.
If I buy a car from a manufacturer who only has plants in the US, and I say I will not buy cars from car manuafacturers that produce cars in Japan, I am not a hypocrite because the company decided to move ot Japan AFTER I bought mine.
Anyway, the PF MMO has tough competition out there. I would say without KOTOR they could have a chance. The game needs to have some strong draw to get people to subscribe loyally.
If they release it for XBOX I'll try it, otherwise I can leave it.
That was news to me as I assumed PF would be using their own rules to supplant the MMO system. If they're not, well then this whole discussion is rather moot as neither Paizo or WotC/4E can be directly tied to MMOs and thus, the argument falls apart.
I recall a couple of reasons I've seen them give for this decision. The first reason being that the mechanics that work in a turn-based tabletop game don't work well in a real-time MMO game. Another reason given was that the implementation of the OGL in a video game would be tricky (at the very least).
Because it hasn't been released and we're not sure what the rules will be based off of.
But, in that case, Pathfinder Online is still far away from being released as well and they even announced that they wouldn't be using the OGL in this game. You included it despite it not being released and not knowing what rules system it would be using, but excluded Neverwinter for the same reasons.
As for the mechanics of making a 4th edition MMO, there are definite problems because of the transition of turning a turn based game into a one played in real-time. Some powers would not be able to be incorporated or would need to be changed to make sense in the new system. For example, a ranger attack power that could be used in response to being missed by a melee attack (in 4th edition) might be incorporated into an online D&D MMO by making that optional attack only possible/active in the moments after an enemy misses you so that it does the essential thing that it did in the tabletop, but without requiring the game needing to be interrupted to resolve it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say that most of my problems with 4th edition are purely from a fluff perspective. I absolutely adored reading Realmslore and Forgotten Realms fiction, R.A. Salvatore, Ed Greenwood and the like; however in the last three years I have seen all of these characters, some with twenty plus years of character building, torn down. These characters were more than written fiction to me, they were friends during difficult times in my life, the people (or Drow) that I got to live vicariously through when I was bored, the reassurance that their really was justice in the world and that everything would turn out for the best if I believed and tried hard enough. Maybe it's crazy for me to hold these characters in such high regard, but they sure as hell deserved better than getting greased because a company decided to try a new marketing focus. All I know is many of my friends on Faerun are now dead to the world of literature, and no true resurrection spell that I or any of my characters ever knew can ever truly bring them back. Just my two copper pieces though.
Your really not crazy. There are lots of studies of fictional characters providing the role of supporter to people in troubled times. When MASH ended, there was an influx of people angry at the show ending. They were considered 'friends'. Studies funny enough from what I have read have focused on Soap Operas.
I'm with you. I was not happy with 4e, but I was willing to adapt, until they made the new 4e campaign world which resembled the good realms in name only. Intellectual laziness won the Realms debate.
I have to say that most of my problems with 4th edition are purely from a fluff perspective. I absolutely adored reading Realmslore and Forgotten Realms fiction, R.A. Salvatore, Ed Greenwood and the like; however in the last three years I have seen all of these characters, some with twenty plus years of character building, torn down. These characters were more than written fiction to me, they were friends during difficult times in my life, the people (or Drow) that I got to live vicariously through when I was bored, the reassurance that their really was justice in the world and that everything would turn out for the best if I believed and tried hard enough. Maybe it's crazy for me to hold these characters in such high regard, but they sure as hell deserved better than getting greased because a company decided to try a new marketing focus. All I know is many of my friends on Faerun are now dead to the world of literature, and no true resurrection spell that I or any of my characters ever knew can ever truly bring them back. Just my two copper pieces though.
Probably the only problem I had with the transition between 3E to 4E was the massive time-jump. I could see 10 years or even 20 years, but a century was a bit too much IMO. I understand why they did it, and from their perspective it was a good idea. But from the fan's POV, losing a lot of characters due to the time-jump was a very bad thing indeed.
If your not sure why WotC jumped so far ahead, it was due to the Canon Police and the practice of double/triple/quadruple checking all relevant Realms events, locale, and important NPCs for your story to have some continunity within the setting. Writers just don't always have the time and resources to study up on 2nd Edition lore of Impiltur, the notable NPCs of Glister which was released in some obscure Dragon magazine 8 years ago, or a small section of a novel 15 years passed which detailed a tavern and the notable food it might have sold to have their novel be consistant with other aspects of the setting.
And one can hardly say that they don't care enough or that it's not important enough to the story to clarify. The main reason is that there is just SOO much of it that I feel it would detract from the story if a writer wrote exclusively to keep Canon perfect and not to tell a great story. By jumping 100 years into the future, a writer can say something about Glister's ruling council or that The Busty Wench tavern is an ideal place to get fried potatoes and breaded chicken wings while being served great ale by pretty women (yes, a Faerûn Hooters) without resulting in breaking Canon, since things just change over time.
Another reason was to place the Realms in a part of their history that was just past the turmoil of the Spellplague. 100 years is a good time for some stability to come back after such a disruptive and destructive time. It's ample time for mages to relearn how to cast magic without the Weave, for followers of Tyr and Helm to create their own, new orders with existing deities, and for the machinations of nations to come to fruition (or fail). All of this would've been very difficult to explain over a short 10 to 20 year peroid and retain any plausable suspension of disbelief.
|
I have to say that most of my problems with 4th edition are purely from a fluff perspective. I absolutely adored reading Realmslore and Forgotten Realms fiction, R.A. Salvatore, Ed Greenwood and the like; however in the last three years I have seen all of these characters, some with twenty plus years of character building, torn down. These characters were more than written fiction to me, they were friends during difficult times in my life, the people (or Drow) that I got to live vicariously through when I was bored, the reassurance that their really was justice in the world and that everything would turn out for the best if I believed and tried hard enough. Maybe it's crazy for me to hold these characters in such high regard, but they sure as hell deserved better than getting greased because a company decided to try a new marketing focus. All I know is many of my friends on Faerun are now dead to the world of literature, and no true resurrection spell that I or any of my characters ever knew can ever truly bring them back. Just my two copper pieces though.
To be honest, they could smoke the entire lot of them and I wouldn't be terribly bothered. Miss the Bouldershoulder Brothers? Like a case of herpes. I used to get a fix of D&D through reading Salvatore, and have a bit of a soft spot for Drizzt. But what I want as a DM will differ to what I look for in a campaign world I might consider playing in. And the novels themselves were cheap knock-off cash-ins, not works of great literary merit, produced by exactly the same corporation and for the same base commercial reasons.
I prefer the new realms personally, nonetheless I think your point about 'deserving better' is well made. I think it was a real error to impose such a violent change without any participation of the fans (and presumably of the authors, although I'm not sure how 'in' on the whole thing they were. Was there a gap in output of novels on 4E's release?). If there'd been a hardback mega-adventure based around the events of the spellplague, or several novels based on the disasters befalling the realms in some way I think it would have been a little more respectful (not quite the right word, but something like that).
Having said that, I doubt it was "...the arbitrary decision of some nine to five pencil pusher who may not have even read his books or even played the game". I'm sure it wasnt arbitrary, and I'm fairly confident it was a genuine attempt to give people what they wanted, even if those of us who were happy about it turned out to be in the minority. It also seems to me that most of the movers and shakers at WoTC (at least creatively) play the game at least at some level.
I prefer the new realms personally, nonetheless I think your point about 'deserving better' is well made. I think it was a real error to impose such a violent change without any participation of the fans (and presumably of the authors, although I'm not sure how 'in' on the whole thing they were. Was there a gap in output of novels on 4E's release?). If there'd been a hardback mega-adventure based around the events of the spellplague, or several novels based on the disasters befalling the realms in some way I think it would have been a little more respectful (not quite the right word, but something like that).
Agreed. I think some of the authors had a hand in steering the ship and I'm sure it would've been way worse had they not had a hand in the process. But it's funny you mention a hard-backed mega adventure as there was one~ Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave, Shadowdale: Scouring of the Land, and Anauroch: The Empire of Shade. It was designed to stop a bunch of Shades in league with the Zhentarim to destory the Chosen, Mystra, and promote the Shadow Weave. In an essence, the PCs were there to pretty much 'STOP' the Spellplague. Funny thing is, it happens anyways about 10 years later.
|
|
Thank you for making me feel a bit less maladjusted, I'm not afraid to admit that at the end of the Ghost King I bawled like an eight year old girl. Diffan and Aubrey, I respect your opinions and even agree with them in some ways, but at the very least, all the characters that alot of us knew, loved and even grew up with, deserved a hell of alot better. I know alot of people have long term characters that get played many times over the course of a gaming career, and the best analogy I can think of is, imagine a character that you've played for years upon years; You've spend hundreds if not thousands of hours brainstorming mechanics, working on interpersonal relationships with other PC's, NPC's etc. dealing with twists, turns rolling with the punches. We invest alot into our characters, invest a little piece of ourselves into them. Then after eight or so years of this character being a part of you, some smart a** DM decides to completely and cheaply own them. We've all seen it happen. Throwing a save or die will save at a fighter, the halfling rogue pulls the wraith card out of the deck of many things, all of that climax your were looking forward to, story past and present, hopes for future development all gone because of some arbitrary decision in piss poor story telling. Now I'm pretty sure everybody can atleast relate to this. Didn't they deserve better? Maybe these books weren't Charles Dickens or Alexandre Dumas, but just imagine how much these authors had to put in to these intersecting plot lines. How much of their souls did they lose because of the arbitrary decision of some nine to five pencil pusher who may not have even read his books or even played the game. Didn't they deserve better?
I understand where you are coming from.
MISERY CHASTAIN CANNOT BE DEAD!
To be honest, they could smoke the entire lot of them and I wouldn't be terribly bothered. Miss the Bouldershoulder Brothers? Like a case of herpes. I used to get a fix of D&D through reading Salvatore, and have a bit of a soft spot for Drizzt. But what I want as a DM will differ to what I look for in a campaign world I might consider playing in. And the novels themselves were cheap knock-off cash-ins, not works of great literary merit, produced by exactly the same corporation and for the same base commercial reasons.
Well I loved the novels, but it is hard to disagree that they were not, well literary merit. I have to say the exception seems to be Salvatore and Elaine Cunningham. Salvatore was a great story teller like Ed Greenwood, and Elaine Cunningham I think is a writer with strong merits. I LEARNED real world things from reading her novels. The rest though I read to 'see what was going on.'
Well I loved the novels, but it is hard to disagree that they were not, well literary merit. I have to say the exception seems to be Salvatore and Elaine Cunningham. Salvatore was a great story teller like Ed Greenwood, and Elaine Cunningham I think is a writer with strong merits. I LEARNED real world things from reading her novels. The rest though I read to 'see what was going on.'
I have been a fan of the FR books for quite some time. I cut my teeth on the Dragonlance novels and when that story/world sorta became boring I went to the Forgotten Realms, and started on Drizzt. Maybe I'm not a literature connoisseur and maybe the vast majority of Realms books won't not get critical acclaim but still, they're pretty good reads. And really, literatre is art which makes it ridiculously subjective. It's sort of like the Twilight books, which many writers and literature Goo-Rous consider utter garbage. Yet it sells millions of copies and is generally held by the public as a great success.
|
|
To be honest, they could smoke the entire lot of them and I wouldn't be terribly bothered. Miss the Bouldershoulder Brothers? Like a case of herpes. I used to get a fix of D&D through reading Salvatore, and have a bit of a soft spot for Drizzt. But what I want as a DM will differ to what I look for in a campaign world I might consider playing in. And the novels themselves were cheap knock-off cash-ins, not works of great literary merit, produced by exactly the same corporation and for the same base commercial reasons.Well I loved the novels, but it is hard to disagree that they were not, well literary merit. I have to say the exception seems to be Salvatore and Elaine Cunningham. Salvatore was a great story teller like Ed Greenwood, and Elaine Cunningham I think is a writer with strong merits. I LEARNED real world things from reading her novels. The rest though I read to 'see what was going on.'
Apart from the Drizzt books, which I read maybe ten to fifteen years ago when I didn't have a game, I generally read what FR books I did read to gen up on canon, as I came fairly late to FR in 3e. It was often a bit of a painful experience. Of course, I haven't read anything like nearly all of them, so there may well be many good ones out there. But I didn't really find them. Salavatore's first offerings were pretty bad, but he got better as he went along.
Apart from the Drizzt books, which I read maybe ten to fifteen years ago when I didn't have a game, I generally read what FR books I did read to gen up on canon, as I came fairly late to FR in 3e. It was often a bit of a painful experience. Of course, I haven't read anything like nearly all of them, so there may well be many good ones out there. But I didn't really find them. Salavatore's first offerings were pretty bad, but he got better as he went along.
I had the fortune of discovering these novels in high school before I learned all about criticism. The early salvatore novels I read then seemed great, and it is only after re-reading them I realized they were not the strongest in regards to literary merit.
I read alot of fantasy, and back in the 90's one could detect a difference in a writer like David Eddings, and a shared world game novel. I enjoyed THE HELL out of the shared world game books, but they were not in any way sophisticated reading.
I am so proud of this thread. I knew it was destined for greatness, and seeing it reach 1000 posts makes me tear up.
And the OP still only has one post to his name.
I think the thread should get credit in the post count for the comments Gary deleted. Or maybe some sort of record for thread with most deleted comments?
My problem with 4E is WOTC's abandonment of the OGL. I loved the OGL to death, and seeing WOTC move on without it upset me a great deal. That's why I went with Pathfinder, and never touched 4E. I have never so much as opened a 4E book, and never will. I will make no comments about the quality of 4E's content, as I never played it. What I will say is that, while I got Pathfinder because of the OGL and not a comparison with 4E, I am highly pleased with the system, and pleased with the availability of 3PP content. That alone makes Pathfinder better than 4E could ever be, at least so far as I am concerned. The openness of Paizo to fans who wish to work with the system is what makes Pathfinder great to me, and 4E just doesn't have that same openness.
|
|
My problem with 4E is WOTC's abandonment of the OGL.
To be fair there are many other great games out there that aren't released under the OGL either - Shadowrun, Savage Worlds, Doctor Who etc, and up until when WotC created the OGL no games were released under it but there was obviously a load of great games for decades!
Having said that, if a game being released under the OGL is the primary factor of importance for you, you may want to check out Mongoose's new Legend system that is 100% OGC and all the core line books will be OGC as well.
I also recommend the FATE system which is largely OGC as well (check out my own Free FATE that is all OGC pretty much). Even Mongoose's Traveller is largely OGC and even has its own SRD (check out teh Developer's Kit free download). Pathfinder is not the only kid on the block in terms of being released under the OGL!
|
|
My problem with 4E is WOTC's abandonment of the OGL. I loved the OGL to death, and seeing WOTC move on without it upset me a great deal.
I love the OGL as well, and am thankful for it as it provided us with the Pathfinder RPG and many other compatible games and settings...
Having said that however, I had played D&D for 20 years prior to the OGL, so WotC moving away from it was not the deal breaker for me personally...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I feel 4e DnD is like a video game.
No, not WoW. That's a tired cliche and WoW has much more inspiration taken from DnD than vice versa.
I'm talking about Bad Dudes.
"The princess has been kidnapped by ninjas. Are you a bad enough dude to save the princess?"
Now, 4e got a fair chance from me, despite loathing its marketing campaign that said succubi had to be devils because they looked human, and pit fiends were cool as they were. Or any of the other changes, like ditching LN and whatnot.
I played in two campaigns of 4e, which makes it two more campaigns than I've played of PF. (I DM PF, and never get to play.) The first game was run similar to Bad Dudes, and I thought it worked out fine, other than the DM's collapse. Both were terminated abruptly, even before we could level up more than once. Which soured me on the experience to be sure.
However, as I maintain to the 4e haters that still frequent Dicefreaks, the rules have promise, and the type of game you end up playing is what the game is going to feel like to you. (4.5 Essentials looks like something that might have been a PF killer had it been the original release.)
I read alot of fantasy, and back in the 90's one could detect a difference in a writer like David Eddings, and a shared world game novel. I enjoyed THE HELL out of the shared world game books, but they were not in any way sophisticated reading.
<wince>
I've been checking in on this thread off and on for a while, but not commenting on the main topic; people like what they like and trying to "prove" that they are "wrong" in their tastes is usually a futile endeavor. Besides, I made my views clear back when 4th edition was first announced; no reason for me to keep stating my position.
However, this I have to respond to. Your argument would have been much better if you would have chosen someone other than David Eddings (Guy Gavriel Kay, for example). He's a pretty good craftsman, and The Losers is a powerful non-fantasy fiction piece, but his fantasy is still "literary popcorn;" light reading without a lot of substance (the way he recycles character personalities and keeps retelling the same basic plot doesn't help, either).
Granted, I started reading sci-fi/fantasy back in the 70s/80s (I blame it all on L. Frank Baum, C. S. Lewis, and J. R. R. Tolkien) and my father had a lot of books from the 60s/70s, so my perspective is probably different. My first experience with shared world writing was the original Thieves' World books (Tales from the Vulgar Unicorn, etc.), so I know it can be done well (usually) with a good set of ground rules and skilled editorial oversight (as well as not having authors just churn out product). A lot of the early RPG-based novels were actually pretty decent (and the first batch of Forgotten Realms ones were pretty close to the Dragonlance ones in quality, IMO); of course, that doesn't even consider RPG-inspired novels like Steven Brust's or Raymond E. Feist's (Brust is a stronger writer than Feist, IMO; Feist is about on par with Salvatore and Hickman/Weiss to me).
My problem with 4E is WOTC's abandonment of the OGL.To be fair there are many other great games out there that aren't released under the OGL either - Shadowrun, Savage Worlds, Doctor Who etc, and up until when WotC created the OGL no games were released under it but there was obviously a load of great games for decades!
Having said that, if a game being released under the OGL is the primary factor of importance for you, you may want to check out Mongoose's new Legend system that is 100% OGC and all the core line books will be OGC as well.
I also recommend the FATE system which is largely OGC as well (check out my own Free FATE that is all OGC pretty much). Even Mongoose's Traveller is largely OGC and even has its own SRD (check out teh Developer's Kit free download). Pathfinder is not the only kid on the block in terms of being released under the OGL!
The OGL is why I went Pathfinder over 4E, but I do very much enjoy using the Pathfinder system. I'm not really looking to switch systems. I may have gone with OGL and not quality when deciding which system to buy, but I am highly pleased with the quality of Pathfinder.
My problem with 4E is WOTC's abandonment of the OGL. I loved the OGL to death, and seeing WOTC move on without it upset me a great deal.I love the OGL as well, and am thankful for it as it provided us with the Pathfinder RPG and many other compatible games and settings...
Having said that however, I had played D&D for 20 years prior to the OGL, so WotC moving away from it was not the deal breaker for me personally...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
It's not that I refuse to play without an OGL. I have World of Darkness, which lacks an OGL. The issue is that I love third party content, and that made the OGL great to me. If I have the choice between D&D with the OGL and D&D without it, I'll take D&D with it. Pathfinder still uses the OGL, and 4E doesn't. That made me biased towards Pathfinder from the start, even though I would have been willing to play without the OGL if Pathfinder wasn't around. The Pathfinder ruleset was highly satisfying to me, which makes me very pleased with my decision to go with it.
It's not that I refuse to play without an OGL. I have World of Darkness, which lacks an OGL. The issue is that I love third party content, and that made the OGL great to me. If I have the choice between D&D with the OGL and D&D without it, I'll take D&D with it. Pathfinder still uses the OGL, and 4E doesn't. That made me biased towards Pathfinder from the start, even though I would have been willing to play without the OGL if Pathfinder wasn't around. The Pathfinder ruleset was highly satisfying to me, which makes me very pleased with my decision to go with it.
The fact that D&D went without the OGL is the very reason why I stuck with D&D. I knew from the get-go that Pathfinder and the SRD/OGL stuff would remain firmly in place along with all the free information that Pathfinder came up with. I can't really afford to pay for two systems and Pathfinder is virtually free with the OGL, so I saw no reason to pay for free-content.
D&D, however, isn't free nor do they have anywhere near the amount of free content there for players. So they received my money to use their stuff while Pathfinder didn't and I got their stuff for free. I'm perfectly happy with this situation as I've enough free stuff from PF to play, run, and create stuff for PF-campaigns. Add in my huge library of v3.5 material and I'll never run out of possibilities. 4E is a bit more fun to run and play (IMO) and I've no qualms about giving them my money for those materials.
It's not that I refuse to play without an OGL. I have World of Darkness, which lacks an OGL. The issue is that I love third party content, and that made the OGL great to me. If I have the choice between D&D with the OGL and D&D without it, I'll take D&D with it. Pathfinder still uses the OGL, and 4E doesn't. That made me biased towards Pathfinder from the start, even though I would have been willing to play without the OGL if Pathfinder wasn't around. The Pathfinder ruleset was highly satisfying to me, which makes me very pleased with my decision to go with it.The fact that D&D went without the OGL is the very reason why I stuck with D&D. I knew from the get-go that Pathfinder and the SRD/OGL stuff would remain firmly in place along with all the free information that Pathfinder came up with. I can't really afford to pay for two systems and Pathfinder is virtually free with the OGL, so I saw no reason to pay for free-content.
D&D, however, isn't free nor do they have anywhere near the amount of free content there for players. So they received my money to use their stuff while Pathfinder didn't and I got their stuff for free. I'm perfectly happy with this situation as I've enough free stuff from PF to play, run, and create stuff for PF-campaigns. Add in my huge library of v3.5 material and I'll never run out of possibilities. 4E is a bit more fun to run and play (IMO) and I've no qualms about giving them my money for those materials.
It's not so much about not wanting to pay (I've given Paizo plenty of money) as it is about third party content. 4E's GSL is a straitjacket, and the OGL is much more open. I like having a lot of third party content. Paizo's openness and friendliness just seal the deal.
Just speaking for third party support of games, versus licensing specifics, the direction WOTC took in regards to digital content and limiting third party support did more damage, versus moving to GSL. Add to that WOTCs abandoning the offline tool set, and their tight reign on ownership of digital content, helps keep that door shut.