| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First statement: I think Scott is out of line for being so insistent that the '4E-haters' are the sole culprits of the 'edition wars'.
Hey, now, that's not what I'm saying.
There are absolutely people on both sides who stir things up, fan the flames, troll-and-dash, and so on. It would be foolish to say that anti-PF people don't exist.
Rather, I'm saying that the lion's share of the roaring inferno that was the edition wars over the 2008-2010 period was the result of intentional provocation (coupled with a burning need to shout opinions to the heavens) on the part of the anti-4e crowd.
Let's be clear: the "two sides" of the edition wars are not "Pro-4e" and "Anti-4e". The two sides are "Anti-4e" and "Anti-3.5/PF". The "Pro-" crowd, of either game, is largely just a bunch of guys happy with their game who don't want to see it dragged through the mud by people who often have no idea what they're talking about.
I also think that the "Anti-3.5/PF" crowd is a little weak, and has much less of a voice, and I think that's because there was never really much of an excuse to jump into that camp anyway. The "Anti-4e" crowd? They could come up with tons of excuses for their behavior - they were betrayed, left behind, fired as fans.
I do tend to agree that, in my experience, they have been more vocal than the opposition.
This is, essentially, what I am saying. I think that if the anti-4e crowd had been no more vocal than the other, we would have reached the "smoldering embers" stage much earlier.
What really gets me, what I loathe most of all, are hearing the stories about people who are interested in the hobby and thinking of trying it out, and have been driven away by this sort of behavior. Who walk up to the counter to check out a 4E book, and have someone walk up to them and tell them how much it sucks, and so they slowly back away and dismiss D&D entirely. Or seeing a positive article about D&D in a mainstream publication, and seeing the comments filled with folk who insist on deriding 4E and those who play it.
Dear lord, yes. I cringe whenever I see Kotaku do any kind of article on D&D (insert joke about cringing whenever I read a Kotaku article, period), because I know that there will be an anti-4e jab in the first four comments. What possible good can that serve?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that in an effort to create balance they have created similarly. The outcome is the same, you just call it something else.
I don't disagree with you about min/maxers being annoying in 3.5/Pathfinder, and that the effort to "win" the game being a problem that needs a firm GM hand.
However I don't...
I don't really want to do the whole quote-by-quote thing. How about this though: literally everything you said is wrong. Not like, "I disagree," but factually and objectively incorrect.
"All classes are the same?" Nope. Are all 3e classes the same because they use a d20 instead of different types of dice? I certainly heard that complaint when 3e was first unveiled. It was wrong. The claim that 4e is too similar is equally wrong.
"The game is too railroady and players can't do anything?" Nonsense. Will you then go on to claim that 3e is literally the only D&D edition that wasn't this way? Because there weren't skills before 3e. 2e had NWPs which were a) optional, and b) a hot mess. You go back far enough, there isn't even those - just pure DM decisions typically based around "Well roll your stat." There's plenty of out of combat thigns you can do in 4e. Lots of 4e players do it all the time. We just realized the lesson we already knew, before 3e came out - that you don't need to write "Profession: Baker" on your character sheet to be a baker.
Your complaints are tired and stale. They are tired and stale because I've heard them a thousand times now. They are tired and stale because they are simply incorrect. They are tired and stale because at least in these complaints you present the air of "I don't know much about 4e, but let me complain about it anyways."
You have attempted to refute me without actually making an argument...good job?
I will attempt to do the opposite.
Skills: You went from 33 in 3.5 to 16, or less than half. And in 4e everyone can be competent in a skill, so having a skill is far less valuable. And don't even get me started on "Skill Challenges"...
All the classes do basically the same thing. A wizard attacks with a spell, a fighter attacks with a sword, etc, etc...sure you can fit into one of your four groups, but basically you are doing the same thing but calling it something else. Which I find rather boring.
Not to mention the lengths they go to in order to somehow give the same "power" to a non-caster without calling it a spell...I don't think they even try for any kind of verisimilitude.
As annoyingly unbalanced as Abberant is, at least it's fun to think of ways to make something completely new and interesting. We played that lots, even if our GM had to house rule like hell to keep power gamers in line with the broken system.
But we all made interesting characters that no one else would have made, thanks to the flexibility of the system. My all time favorite character was a Redneck who was functionally invulnerable. He wore a luchador mask and pretended to be "mexican" calling himself "El Tougho Grande".
In 3.5 and Pathfinder I can't remember any two characters being alike, even remotely. Sure tropes come in fairly often, but even then the system is built in such a way that each class (or multiclass) does things so differently that each one feels completely different, and each group has to use them differently, has to integrate differently.
My experience with 4e is more plug and play.
And again, I find that boring. Or rather, not so much boring as a waste of my friends creativity and an experience I can have just as easily in front of a computer screen.
But I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that 4e was made with the goal of "improvement" over 3.5 more than "increased profit" over 3.5.
Funny, I'd say you're in a thread with at least one person doing exactly that.
In my opinion, the game designers set out to create the best game they knew how to make. I also happen to believe the resulting game was badly mismanaged, but really, that's a whole different issue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that 4e was made with the goal of "improvement" over 3.5 more than "increased profit" over 3.5.Funny, I'd say you're in a thread with at least one person doing exactly that.
In my opinion, the game designers set out to create the best game they knew how to make. I also happen to believe the resulting game was badly mismanaged, but really, that's a whole different issue.
I think they tried to create the best game they knew how to make in the framework of integrating it into a subscription service and spreading it out through multiple books that would need to be purchased as they would not be OGL content.
Not the same thing as setting out to make the best game they could.
I think they tried to create the best game they knew how to make in the framework of integrating it into a subscription service and spreading it out through multiple books that would need to be purchased as they would not be OGL content.
They could have set up very nearly the same exact subscription service with 3.5. 4e's design was not predicated upon trying to squeeze it into a subscription model.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think they tried to create the best game they knew how to make in the framework of integrating it into a subscription service and spreading it out through multiple books that would need to be purchased as they would not be OGL content.
Not the same thing as setting out to make the best game they could.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, then. I do agree that the 4E core was missing a few important races and classes from earlier editions (though they did include a few new ones), and could have used more rituals, I do not believe it is purposefully incomplete or unplayable with an eye toward forcing subscriptions.
As for multiple books...has Paizo announced Ultimate Wombat yet? Bloat (unfortunately) sells.
To me, the quality of the modules in LG and the early LFR modules were about the same. The difference was that a good DM was absolutely crucial to the LFR modules being even moderately successful, with the not so good attempts and unbalanced tables leading to atrocious experiences. With LG, the only time I experienced such bad experiences with when very specific players/DMs were at the table; most of the rest ended up being average with about the same amount of truly great experiences.
I'm sure part of it was the level of system familiarity and level of system development, but on the whole, I felt that 3.5 was more accessible to the player, providing them more tools and predictability from table to table and DM to DM than 4E in that environment could provide. In the about a dozen LFR modules I played in, I simply had too many experiences in LFR where one table/DM almost never deviated from the text whatsoever and the next table/DM was overly generous in what was sought/allowed, and I never knew what to expect from one session to the next. Even the same DM would be different based on how many players were peppering him/her with questions and how often in the short amount of time they had to work with. 4E is just not a good system when you try to do anything noncombat and you don't have the luxury of a consistent group; there are too many variables that only the DM can answer. I suspect there is a reason that the Encounters they have now are mostly combat; those are the rules that everyone can understand and expect to be consistently applied.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think they tried to create the best game they knew how to make in the framework of integrating it into a subscription service and spreading it out through multiple books that would need to be purchased as they would not be OGL content.They could have set up very nearly the same exact subscription service with 3.5. 4e's design was not predicated upon trying to squeeze it into a subscription model.
I disagree. I believe many of the changes in 4e were made to make it more programming friendly.
Admittedly I haven't subscribed or used the subscription service, so I'm going on 2nd hand for that portion, but I think the fact you have to use the words "very nearly" is quite telling.
I was eagerly awaiting 4e prior to release and reading all of the press clippings from Wizards, and it was clear that integration with the subscription service was a key focus of the design. I was actually looking forward to this, as I have a projector I was going to use with the map tools.
Then it came out...
Reminder: Ciretose thinks WotC literally hires people to defend them on the internet, and that includes some of us.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reminder: Ciretose thinks WotC literally hires people to defend them on the internet, and that includes some of us.That's true, my paycheck from WotC for agitating 4E fans to defend their game just got in the mail.
Of course the foreigner comes in here to stir discontent...damn Polish always invading other...oh...wait :)
And all I got was this lousy t-shirt...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course the foreigner comes in here to stir discontent...damn Polish always invading other...oh...wait :)Reminder: Ciretose thinks WotC literally hires people to defend them on the internet, and that includes some of us.That's true, my paycheck from WotC for agitating 4E fans to defend their game just got in the mail.
Hey we did invade and take and seize a tiny part of Czechoslovakia in 1938! Speaks volume about about our trouble-making ability, I know.
Regardless of the game system, it is not a trivial task to create a campaign, adventure, or even a simple encounter that will draw the players interest. Therefore the approach of 4E is to make the mechanics uniform and streamlined so it does not interefere with the most difficult task of any roleplaying system, i.e. develop a compelling plot or setting.
When I played Pathfinder again as a DM, I had to look up all the rules that applied to every creature or NPC I created, including abilties, magic items and spells. With 4E, I still needed to lookup stuff, but I already have a general expectation of the rule set, versus running in the various sub-systems in Pathfinder. That is not a bad thing, it just depends on the level of complexity you want.
I also understand views on 4E being too rigid or confining, because it strives to be a uniformed and streamlined set of rules. I support this thought in respect that 4E went to far in it's desgin goal. However, it would not be that difficult to expand it a bit, versus taking a system like Pathfinder and removing complexity. I only state that because of the reaction of 3.5 players when 4E was released.
As to 4E design motives, I truely think they wanted it to be like magic the card game, versus a video game or anything else, so you can build renewable income in regards to power books for classes, or more choices to play with. The only difference is you would buy books versus cards. It would be a bonus if they could covert some card players over at the same time.
I disagree. I believe many of the changes in 4e were made to make it more programming friendly.
What a lot of people miss is that making changes to a game to make it more programming-friendly is often indistinguishable from making changes to a game in order to make it run more smoothly, make it less convoluted, or make it easier to understand.
Admittedly I haven't subscribed or used the subscription service, so I'm going on 2nd hand for that portion, but I think the fact you have to use the words "very nearly" is quite telling.
I used the words "very nearly" because 3.5 and 4e are not the same system.
|
|
I think they tried to create the best game they knew how to make in the framework of integrating it into a subscription service and spreading it out through multiple books that would need to be purchased as they would not be OGL content.
Not the same thing as setting out to make the best game they could.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, then. I do agree that the 4E core was missing a few important races and classes from earlier editions (though they did include a few new ones), and could have used more rituals, I do not believe it is purposefully incomplete or unplayable with an eye toward forcing subscriptions.
As for multiple books...has Paizo announced Ultimate Wombat yet? Bloat (unfortunately) sells.
Oh don't get me wrong, I don't think Paizo is a non-profit.
I think WoTC saw how WoW was making money and wanted in on some of that, and that seeped heavily into the design of 4e and took the eye off the ball of the core business of people sitting around a table with dice. They wanted to get more money out of gamers by pushing more rule books and more services.
Paizo went the other way, realizing the more people that are playing the more modules and APs they will need to buy in order to play. They are still trying to get our money, but they are betting on volume of players rather than getting more money from each player.
It is the OGL philosophy (more people have access to the rules, more people play, more customers) vs the closed model (can't play without the books, so you got to buy the books)
I think when you look at the two concepts, Paizo's model is better for the end user and puts the pressure on them to make a product that is fun to play, so that we will play more and buy more adventures.
WoTC model isn't as focused on play ability, as much as it is in selling the promise that the next book or service will make things better.
But like you said, we probably will have to agree to disagree.
|
|
I disagree. I believe many of the changes in 4e were made to make it more programming friendly.What a lot of people miss is that making changes to a game to make it more programming-friendly is often indistinguishable from making changes to a game in order to make it run more smoothly, make it less convoluted, or make it easier to understand.
And this is a very, very fair point and argument.
4E is more accessible as a system. Although it is much less accessible to exposure with the lame OGL.
Where we differ is in my feeling that it is over simplified, and therefore not as interesting or engrossing.
If WoTC had put out an "entry level" system as a gateway to an "advanced" system, I think that would have been genius.
But instead I feel like they dumbed it down and then got rid of the interesting system.
YMMV.
I think min/maxing is pretty huge in both pathfinder and 4E. The main difference is that 4E has a better set of checks and balances, so that the min/maxers don't totally trash the game. Unfortunately, IMO both systems tend to draw in a lot of min maxer players, and tend to bring out that part in even the more non munchkin players.
One of the biggest shifts between the two editions was that 4E really attempted to reign in magic so that it doesn't take over the game. Every 9+ level 3E campaign I have ever been involved in has become entirely dominated by spellcasting. In 4E this is not the case. There are a lot of things I have come to dislike about 4E, but at least as dm I could run a 4E game without having the magic system completely dominate the game. I don't miss that.
I also don't get what is so "dumbed down" by 4E. I feel like people who say this are actually taking about how the magic system has been cut back. I feel that with the power system, martial characters are more complex in 4E than 3E, and the use of team tactics in combat is also quite complex and by no means "dumbed down."
If by dumbed down you mean that you no longer have the party walking into combat each buffed by a dozen different spells, then I'll take another serving of dumbed down.
I find 4E better for roleplaying, for setting building, for exploration and detail. There are definite areas where trade-offs have been made - for me, both as a player and a DM, those trade-offs help avoid the 'min/max' mindset that I felt permeated 3rd Edition. It made it possible to focus on actual character concepts and development, and not worry about 'winning' the game as 3rd Edition seemed so focused on. The greater focus on narrative over mechanics makes for more robust story-telling and more immersion in the story for the players. The specifics of the core setting and cosmology resonate more for me on the level of myth and fantasy than the potentially dry 'histories' of earlier settings.
Now, for whatever reasons, many other folks have not run into those problems with 3rd Edition. Or they find the greater simulationism of 3rd Edition to make for a more intense experience. Or they simply prefer the Great Wheel vs the Astral Sea, or Greyhawk vs Nerath, or whatever - and all of that is perfectly fine.
But then some folks, like...
Actually the min/max mindset is relieved because it is built in the game for you already. The min/max problem is one of character optimization. Other than optimization boards, I don't encounter min/maxing much.
I have played 4e for several years now with different DM's. Character concepts and narrativist play are no easier to create in 4e than 3rd edition. If I play a board game and I say I want the Hat to be a dragon and I go to conquer the BOARDWALK, that is a great narrativist situation. However it was not the rules that allowed that, it was the player and the group.
Monster creation and adventure design is easier I will grant you that. I happen to like that monsters follow character rules in PF (one thing I liked over 1st edition as well), and I like that monsters in 3/PF are not one size fits all for purposes of an encounter slot.
As far as the electronic media goes, I definitely think that WOTC...
It's somewhat nonsensical to try to compare Paizo business practices with WotC's, when a) WotC has a whole hell of a lot more on their plate then just D&D, with D&D truthfully being one of the more minor aspects of WotC, and b) WotC made a full new system for 4e. Paizo did not make a full new system for Pathfinder.
the statement is as meaningful as Boston Red Sox fans, defending Yankee fans.Next time you're watching the game at Fenway, casually mention to the guy wearing the baseball cap with the red "B" on it that you're a fan of the Sox and the Yankees. You let us know how that goes.
Interesting that this was a comparison.
I was wearing my Sox cap today in Anatomy and a guy in a Yankees cap sat next to me. In the middle of class, this dude leans over and has the audacity to say this to me: "Did she just say manubrium?" I said yes and showed him my notes.
If that had been Fenway, I would have thrown a hot dog at his grandmother.
As for these 'game store toughs' that are deriding particular editions, I can only share my personal experience; and that shows that my FLGS has two tables full of 4e players and one PFS player standing in the corner. Both of these groups are vastly outnumbered by a horde of Magic players.
My store is in Hasbro's backyard, though.
If that had been Fenway, I would have thrown a hot dog at his grandmother.
Man knows his baseball etiquette.
I never see hate in the game stores.Count yourself lucky. I was reading a thread just this last month that talked about how a group of Pathfinder organized play players would stand around the D&D Encounters tables and laugh at the game and its players, creating a very uncomfortable environment for those trying to play D&D.
Well that is completely unacceptable. I would like to see more proof than a thread, but that burden is not on you. I suspect it is the thread author fabricating a case. If it is not that is utterly unacceptable. I don't even know how a game store would allow that. Have you had any bad experiences at a game store?
(Here, of course, I mention that they were Pathfinder organized play players merely for the sake of context, and to show that they're not just a random group of people laughing at D&D, but instead are a group of people laughing at that specific version of D&D.)
Yes I understand that.
You have it backwards. I don't defend 4e to feel like I'm in the right. I understand 4e, and I am comfortable enough with that understanding to correct misrepresentations of it.
Trust me, if I wanted to feel validated in argument, I'd go debate evolution with creationists.
Actually that is not as simple as you think. Biologists make it a point not to debate creationists because of the simple reason, even though biologists are correct, the creationists convince the uninformed audience THEY are correct. It is one of the most frustrating things ever.
Again placing the responsibility with everyone but the individual. If you don't get the play experience you're looking for, it's because the system failed you and not because of any personal factor. If you don't appreciate the newest game, it's because the company left you behind and not because you decided not to follow it.
I have no responsibility to like a company's product. The company has a responsibility to please customers. They chose a different set of customers. In no way shape or form is it my responsibility to conform to their new philosophy.
The system indeed failed me. White wold system also fails me. I do not like it. That does not mean there is a 'failing' on my part. It does not fit my preference. If I do not like 'Fords' there is no failing on my part. The company simply failed to please a customer. That is where the responsibility lies. (Incidently Mearls said the same thing at Gencon. Why did Wizards fail a certain sector of their customers, and if so why?)
Do you see how this is different from games? Do you understand that two different games can both be successful, and have shared groups of fans? Do you understand that it's entirely possible for a group of fans of one game to just not really care at all about making jabs at the other game, because there's no need to do that, at all?
And, above all, do you understand how juvenile it looks to have a group of people who insist on doing exactly that anyway, for no other reason than that they can, and because the internet gives them an audience for it? Do you get how that can make a game's entire fanbase look pretty juvenile by association if it consistently comes from people who happen to be fans of that game?
Yes I can understand that. But I also understand that in both camps those people are a minority. I get how it could make an entire fanbase look juvenile, but that is the thing, Both sides participate in the juvenile activity.
My friends play 4e, I have friedns that are upset I will not run 4e for them. Yet none of us chide each other for the games we play. There is not sufficient evidence to support the claims that one side is responsible.
I am a rather confrontational person. If I saw a group of PF players acting like asses in a game store or a con towards a group of players playing tiddly winks, I would tel them to look deep inside themselves. I do not condone the activity, but just as you will not let people falsely discuss 4e, I am not going to let people claim one side is more responsible than the other when there is evidence that BOTH sides have commited equal attacks.
And I certainly am not claiming you need validation to PLAY 4e, because you are insecure about the game or something crazy like that. You want to defend a game that is dear to you because you are good at it. I get it.
Well that is completely unacceptable. I would like to see more proof than a thread, but that burden is not on you. I suspect it is the thread author fabricating a case. If it is not that is utterly unacceptable. I don't even know how a game store would allow that. Have you had any bad experiences at a game store?
I have never played D&D at a game store (I've always been fortunate enough to have friends who played, so I never needed to resort to public play to get my fix). However, I have played at conventions and both seen and heard examples of this very sort of snobbery (and I've heard that I've missed out on the most hostile con environments, since I only really attend PAX). I was also once introduced to someone at a house party, and the topic of D&D came up all of thirty seconds after the introduction. He asked what edition I played, I replied that I played 4th Edition, and his immediate response was, verbatim, "4e sucks, play Pathfinder."
Again, can we not pretend that this isn't a real thing?
Actually that is not as simple as you think. Biologists make it a point not to debate creationists because of the simple reason, even though biologists are correct, the creationists convince the uninformed audience THEY are correct. It is one of the most frustrating things ever.
I know this first-hand, but the sense of validation comes from the certainty of being on the right side of the argument, not from winning it (as you note, often an exercise in futility). This is different from liking a game, which is very much a matter of preference, and for which there can be no assurance of being on the "right" side (since no such side exists).
I have no responsibility to like a company's product. The company has a responsibility to please customers.
The company has a responsibility to be a successful business, and to whom that company is beholden depends on its structure. Pleasing customers is certainly a tried-and-true route to success, but "Pleasing customers," is not synonymous with "Pleasing you in particular."
They chose a different set of customers. In no way shape or form is it my responsibility to conform to their new philosophy.
Neither is it their responsibility to cater to your personal set of expectations, especially if those expectations are inflexible or unreasonable (not that they are, just illustrating the point).
That hasn't stopped you from rhetorically laying the blame at the company's feet, when it is just as easily laid at your own (and properly laid at neither).
The system indeed failed me. White wold system also fails me. I do not like it. That does not mean there is a 'failing' on my part. It does not fit my preference.
Similarly, it does not indicate a failure on their part, unless their goal was to specifically appeal to you as a player (it probably wasn't).
If you had the expectation that WotC existed to please you as a customer, rather than to please customers in general, then I can certainly see how you might feel that they have failed you. However, expecting that any company will cater to the whims of one particular customer over the whims of many is unreasonable.
If I do not like 'Fords' there is no failing on my part. The company simply failed to please a customer. That is where the responsibility lies. (Incidently Mearls said the same thing at Gencon. Why did Wizards fail a certain sector of their customers, and if so why?)
I understand Mearls offering the olive branch, and I think it's a smart decision, but it's sort of a shame that he felt the need to.
I understand Mearls offering the olive branch, and I think it's a smart decision, but it's sort of a shame that he felt the need to.
Well, a shame it might be, but the fact is, we do have a fractured fanbase. Sales which might have gone to WoTC are instead going to Paizo; why is that? Was WoTC successful in creating a system which appealed to "customers in general" when they are now racing, neck and neck, for sales and mindshare with a rival system based on an older iteration of DnD?
Mearls is a nice guy, he certainly shouldn't be shouldering blame that isn't his, but someone has to account for, and take action on, the fact that the standard bearer for fantasy role playing isn't ruling it's own roost any longer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well that is completely unacceptable. I would like to see more proof than a thread, but that burden is not on you. I suspect it is the thread author fabricating a case. If it is not that is utterly unacceptable. I don't even know how a game store would allow that. Have you had any bad experiences at a game store?I have never played D&D at a game store (I've always been fortunate enough to have friends who played, so I never needed to resort to public play to get my fix). However, I have played at conventions and both seen and heard examples of this very sort of snobbery (and I've heard that I've missed out on the most hostile con environments, since I only really attend PAX). I was also once introduced to someone at a house party, and the topic of D&D came up all of thirty seconds after the introduction. He asked what edition I played, I replied that I played 4th Edition, and his immediate response was, verbatim, "4e sucks, play Pathfinder."
Again, can we not pretend that this isn't a real thing?
Actually that is not as simple as you think. Biologists make it a point not to debate creationists because of the simple reason, even though biologists are correct, the creationists convince the uninformed audience THEY are correct. It is one of the most frustrating things ever.I know this first-hand, but the sense of validation comes from the certainty of being on the right side of the argument, not from winning it (as you note, often an exercise in futility). This is different from liking a game, which is very much a matter of preference, and for which there can be no assurance of being on the "right" side (since no such side exists).
I have no responsibility to like a company's product. The company has a responsibility to please customers.The company has a responsibility to be a successful business, and to whom that company is beholden depends on its structure. Pleasing customers is certainly a tried-and-true route to success, but...
No I do not expect wotc to cater to MY needs. But then they can't expect support from my dollars. It was not just me though it was many. That is part of the price wotc had to pay. The price I had to pay was a new system. I am happier for it.
Wotc extending the branch is not a shame on the customers part. They only responded accordingly to a product they do not like. Wotc might feel it in the bottom line, that is their own fault.
Once again I do not think wotc is there to please me. But they failed a market sector of which I am a part. If they chose to please me, maybe that market sector would still be with them.
I understand Mearls offering the olive branch, and I think it's a smart decision, but it's sort of a shame that he felt the need to.Well, a shame it might be, but the fact is, we do have a fractured fanbase. Sales which might have gone to WoTC are instead going to Paizo; why is that? Was WoTC successful in creating a system which appealed to "customers in general" when they are now racing, neck and neck, for sales and mindshare with a rival system based on an older iteration of DnD?
Mearls is a nice guy, he certainly shouldn't be shouldering blame that isn't his, but someone has to account for, and take action on, the fact that the standard bearer for fantasy role playing isn't ruling it's own roost any longer.
I kind of agree. Love it or hate it or somewhere-in-between-it, it's hard to deny that 4E was a mismanaged property early in its cycle, with some weird missteps in marketing that did the brand more harm than good. Mearls isn't at fault for that, and he's played the role of concerned geek well. It's good that he's been willing to put himself up for some pretty heavy criticism and acknowledge that there's something else out there pulling ahead in the print market, and admit that Wizards needs to catch up. I know of no instances of official articles on the D&D website or public statements by anyone other than him who even acknowledges the big purple golem in the corner (though I'll concede the point if someone decides to dumpster dive for some).
I'd also point out that stories of player-on-player heckling in game stores are too anecdotal upon which to place credence; I've heard credible accounts of the same sort of behavior in my locale where 4E players were the bad guy. I've also been the guy who says in passing, "4E sucks, play Pathfinder", and regret doing so because I'd not had time to make a proper evaluation of the system. Emotions ran high when the system hit (obviously, if you read this thread), and people on both "sides" said dumb things.
No I do not expect wotc to cater to MY needs. But then they can't expect support from my dollars. It was not just me though it was many. That is part of the price wotc had to pay. The price I had to pay was a new system. I am happier for it.
Wotc extending the branch is not a shame on the customers part. They only responded accordingly to a product they do not like. Wotc might feel it in the bottom line, that is their own fault.
Once again I do not think wotc is there to please me. But they failed a market sector of which I am a part. If they chose to please me, maybe that market sector would still be with them.
And how exactly was WotC to know an edition change would have such ramifications? From my own perspective, I thought the Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords was a total hit with the target audience. That was one of the Beta-tests for a 4E style game. So based on that information (and I'm sure info from other sources) a more stream-lined game with better balance is what they felt the audience wanted.
And lets be honest here, 3.5 is a fun game with lots of character and LOADS of information that can allow you to literally make millions of character combinations. But there are also significant problems within the system too. Aspects the designers didn't think of (like scaling BAB vs. static ACs) or combinations of X, Y, and Z that allowed players to systematically over-take deities. These things were, I'm sure, uncommon to rare at most average joe's gaming group yet still happend from time to time.
Sorry but a new edition was needed. v3.5 was getting to bloated with too much crunch and not enought emphasis on decent and intriguing APs. Even with Paizo doing stuff, which I didn't know about til after 4E's launch, there was a gap in system balance. It seemed like they were just putting stuff out to keep us buying it. Not because it was needed for a better, fulfilled world, but because there was nothing left to cover.
And I don't see how anyone could think it would be in WotC best interest to produce another revision to 3E without having a HUGE back-lash of resent and anger from the gaming populace. Espically only after 5 years since the previous one. No, they were stuck between a rock and a hard place and so they chose to do something innovative. It was risky, sure, but at least they attempted to think outside the boring box that d20/OGL was becoming. Besides, had they NOT have switched to 4E, Paizo probably wouldn't have been as popular as they are now. All, of course, IMO. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, the quality of the modules in LG and the early LFR modules were about the same. The difference was that a good DM was absolutely crucial to the LFR modules being even moderately successful, with the not so good attempts and unbalanced tables leading to atrocious experiences. With LG, the only time I experienced such bad experiences with when very specific players/DMs were at the table; most of the rest ended up being average with about the same amount of truly great experiences.
Price of powerful mechanics - you can get yourself into deeper trouble with them
4Es system is extremely good at giving each individual DM what he is looking for in the game.
This is the beauty of the system. It is an extremely powerful DM side tool that allows each of us to craft the kind of D&D we are looking for. What I mean by 4Es skill system being DM side as opposed to Player side.
If you think about it, and presupposing that the DM is using the DC by level chart from page 126 of RC, then the challenges that a player can overcome are only marginally decided by the player (when he decides what bonus to each skill he has). In reality what the player can overcome is decided by the DM - not so much by picking DCs but literally by picking whole adventures. Your players are what they encounter.
As DMs we actually create these heroes - we define what kind of heroes they are, what they can do, and we do so from the moment we choose or create an adventure for them to interact with. This is why two different DMs can have a different answer to what the desired granularity in 4E is. When you decide that X adventure is appropriate for players of Y level you are defining what kind of heroes you have - you are defining what they can, and conversely what they cannot do. If I have a different view of granularity I get different heroes because my different view of granuility means I choose or make adventures based on a different criteria.
In effect an adventure is level appropriate because I, as the DM, say it is. In fact I do that implicitly when I created the adventure. If I have it so that there is a mansion that is being repaired and there is all sorts of thin scaffolding on the side of the mansion which becomes the scene of a running battle above the streets that adventure will automatically be level appropriate no matter what level I choose because in creating the adventure I used the skill DCs from page 126.
Compare and contrast with 3.x/PF which is a Player side system. The rules tell you what all the DCs in the game are likely to be. The numbers on their characters are absolutes – the characters can or cannot climb a sheer cliff based not on what the DM says but on what the numbers on the characters sheets say when compared to what the rule in the books say.
While its never made explicit in the books there actually is a 'correct' level in 3.x/PF that the scaffolding adventure should be run at. If the players are above that level then the challenges presented by the scaffolding are trivial and its not an engaging scene while if the level chosen is to low then the challenges presented by the scaffolding are practically impossible and there can't be a scene on the scaffolding because the players are not competent enough to go on it without being near certain to fail their balance checks and fall off.
Hence this is an important style mechanic for 4E if you don't always want the look and feel of your adventure to be generally identical. For example I might be looking for a really high fantasy campaign set in Ebberon with all sorts of amazing stunts but MK is currently doing a kind of dark and gritter Ravenloft campaign. Its important that both he and I can craft the look and feel of our campaigns to suite the style of what we are playing and in this I might be much more permissive with what kinds of scenes I want my players involved in when compared to what MK is doing Its important here that the system supports us both.
Nor is it even necessarily the case that people playing in the same world should all be using identical challenges. If I take a world like Darksun and run a campaign there one of the first questions I'm going to ask myself is 'is this Darksun where the hero's will kill the Dragon and return rain to Athas?' or is it 'The Crimson Sun eventually claims everyone - victory is transitory and defeat ultimately inevitable - your bones too will eventually be bleached, scoured and forgotten in the sands of Athas'. My answer to that question will significantly impact the look and feel of my campaign but the base system will support either option because, at the end of the day, it does what I tell it to do as opposed to it telling me what is or is not appropriate for my PCs of X level.
a good, but too long to fully quote post
I tend to agree with you on what you said. I just think that in order to be effective it does require a consistent group, otherwise the players are going to constantly left guessing at what to expect, and while most players like some surprises, they also like some kind of predictability. It is the price the developers paid for going the route they did; they ended up with a system that accomplished their goals quite well, but reduced the number of potential players in the process because a lot of pre existing groups, and organized play in general, lacked the stability and consistency needed for a good 4E game.
Skills: You went from 33 in 3.5 to 16, or less than half. And in 4e everyone can be competent in a skill, so having a skill is far less valuable. And don't even get me started on "Skill Challenges"...
Everyone can be competent at any skill they work at being competent at. However what I think you must mean here is that the range between the best and the worst has dropped pretty dramatically. True though there is still a fair amount of variance mainly because if I have 7 at Skill X and you have 12 then your going to be able to make the DCs for skill X more often then I will. The big difference is that I probably still have a shot at anything that is not insanely hard.
All and all a strong element if your looking for either more interactive combat scenes like the battle taking place on a swinging rope bridge...since everyone can probably make that roll...at least some of the time. The guy with high dex and training in acrobatics almost always makes it and the guy in the other extreme might flunk that roll 60% of the time but everyone will be able to participate in this scene. If the numbers get to far apart between the different members, especially if one set of players pumps them up constantly while another set never touches them then you can't really do a scene on a swinging rope bridge. Half the players presumably autosucceed with their maxed ot skill while the other half dare not set foot on the bridge because they have no hope of making the DC. The sharp contrast means elements like this in the game are really just cameo's for the one player that pumped up the skill. The DM put this scene there so that this player could show off his skill.
Its also critical that the numbers are not to far apart for more extended non-combat scenes in your game because it means that all of the players can reasonably participate in most of the non combat scenes. Important if your about to do two sessions of a fantasy murder investigation and there won't be a combat in either of them. Your hands as the DM are tied if the system itself makes it so that some characters are just significantly more useful when the swords stay sheathed. In effect having true 'face' characters makes non-combat elements 'where the face player shines' but since that player is only 1 of a group of 5 it tends to mean that non-combat elements of the game are essentially rationed out. Better if the system attempts to support having all the players participate in the non-combat adventure as a whole - then you can run less combat if that is the direction your campaign is headed.
|
|
Skills: You went from 33 in 3.5 to 16, or less than half. And in 4e everyone can be competent in a skill, so having a skill is far less valuable. And don't even get me started on "Skill Challenges"...
Everyone can be competent at any skill they work at being competent at. However what I think you must mean here is that the range between the best and the worst has dropped pretty dramatically. True though there is still a fair amount of variance mainly because if I have 7 at Skill X and you have 12 then your going to be able to make the DCs for skill X more often then I will. The big difference is that I probably still have a shot at anything that is not insanely hard.
All and all a strong element if your looking for either more interactive combat scenes like the battle taking place on a swinging rope bridge...since everyone can probably make that roll...at least some of the time. The guy with high dex and training in acrobatics almost always makes it and the guy in the other extreme might flunk that roll 60% of the time but everyone will be able to participate in this scene. Its also critical for more extended non-combat scenes in your game because it means that all of the players can reasonably participate in most of the non combat scenes. Important if your about to do two sessions of a fantasy murder investigation and there won't be a combat in either of them. Your hands as the DM are tied if the system itself makes it so that some characters are just significantly more useful when the swords stay sheathed.
I don't think tying the DMs hands is a bad thing all the time. The rules themselves are the check and balance over the godlike power of a DM.
If something isn't insanely hard, you can take 10, or even 20 if you have the time. But if you are doing the murder mystery, that is the time the skill classes are rewarded for being skill classes, even if it means those without skills need to take a back seat in the adventure for a little while.
If everyone is equal and the DM is the man behind the curtain able to work in a rather arbitrary way...meh.
Most of the fun of running games for me comes in being surprised by what the players come up with to overcome my plans. Particularly at higher levels.
No I do not expect wotc to cater to MY needs. But then they can't expect support from my dollars. It was not just me though it was many. That is part of the price wotc had to pay. The price I had to pay was a new system. I am happier for it.
Wotc extending the branch is not a shame on the customers part. They only responded accordingly to a product they do not like. Wotc might feel it in the bottom line, that is their own fault.
Once again I do not think wotc is there to please me. But they failed a market sector of which I am a part. If they chose to please me, maybe that market sector would still be with them.
And how exactly was WotC to know an edition change would have such ramifications? From my own perspective, I thought the Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords was a total hit with the target audience. That was one of the Beta-tests for a 4E style game. So based on that information (and I'm sure info from other sources) a more stream-lined game with better balance is what they felt the audience wanted.
And lets be honest here, 3.5 is a fun game with lots of character and LOADS of information that can allow you to literally make millions of character combinations. But there are also significant problems within the system too. Aspects the designers didn't think of (like scaling BAB vs. static ACs) or combinations of X, Y, and Z that allowed players to systematically over-take deities. These things were, I'm sure, uncommon to rare at most average joe's gaming group yet still happend from time to time.
Sorry but a new edition was needed. v3.5 was getting to bloated with too much crunch and not enought emphasis on decent and intriguing APs. Even with Paizo doing stuff, which I didn't know about til after 4E's launch, there was a gap in system balance. It seemed like they were just putting stuff out to keep us buying it. Not because it was needed for a better, fulfilled world, but because there was nothing left to cover.
And I don't see how anyone could...
Wizards took a risk, I agree. I suspect the company that risk served best is Paizo however.
I can only agree that an update was needed and Paizo filled that need. If Wotc made the upgrade, they MIGHT have had similar backlash, who knows. I suspect they would'nt have had such a severe backlash, but there is no way to know that.
I am fine with WOTC feeling the hit. A company that does not serve its customers properly DESERVES the hit. That is how it works. It made alot of people happy, but it got many upset. That is the world of business. The only way to influence a company is with Bottom line, and WOTC learned that. It is great they serve the customers interested in 4e, but in doing so they turned people with different design philosophies away. It didn't matter to them at first. Now it does. Market forces are making them rethink their previous position. Perhaps it is too late.
They have a different customer base of which I am no longer a part. I am willing to see what they have in store, but another company now recieves my business. THat is the way businesses work.
Normally I try to ignore these threads, or just whistle the theme tune to " Different Strokes". They are usually filled with false analogies, opinion on taste and straw man back and forth’s. However I will chime in with a returning RPG-er opinion. This is probably in error and I will be pulled into the 7th circle of hell, to be whipped with celery!
Firstly, when I was reviewing D&D as a game I wanted to pick up again after a 16 year break, the hatred of 4E in blog posts, forums and so-called reviews was pervasive and filled with vitriol. I actually set aside the 4E player handbook (An impulse purchase.) and was filtered by this opinion to Pathfinder.
One Core Rulebook PDF purchase later, I had a MONSTER book that I would have to digest and then explain to a group that has kids/work and no time for system mastery. It looked good, but with no knowledge of 3E I decided to put it aside and return to the digestible 4E. My group of mostly never before RPG players are having a blast every other week with 4E. From reading some of the above posts many of you I would imagine believe we are playing [snipe] Pong without an Atari [/snipe] or something similar. One of the new RPG-er’s has even DM-ed the group through Scott’s 4E conversion of The Skin Saw Murders. We even do that talking in character stuff and interacting with NPC’s in 4E, amazing I know!
My point is the general “slap fest” for 4E is real on the internet; my research saw nothing similar for Pathfinder. Although I have seen some on the WOTC boards mainly on the threads stating why play D&D 4E when Pathfinder is better. Having never played 3E, LG, LFR ,or any of those other acronyms I know nothing about, I cannot comment on comparisons between the system; but the general your game is rubbish, I can do that better in my game, look at me I am so clever and you are not style posts are really…well…annoying. I try not to look, but like a car crash…it draws my eye…damn human nature!
|
|
You know when I start a thread that may talk about $E or any product that may refer to a Wotc product I pretty much have to include that their be no 4E bashing or any bashing of Wotc products. Or it will happen. More than once as soon as 4E or Wotc is mentioned in any thread someone comes along and decides to start bashing either or both. Even when the thread topic has nothing to do with that. So to say that 4E defenders get too overzealous in defending the game maybe true. Yet from what happens on these boards we have to be.
I'm all for disliking 4E. Not when posters and the usual ones take every damn opportunity to do so. No matter the topic at hand. I have seem similar type of behavior elsewhere. Yet imo it's much worse. The anti-4E slapfest exists as Paedur has pointed out. So does the anti-PF slapfest too yet neither to the level of the first. Having been subject to not one not two but three encounters of that in game stores let just say I'm not impressed with dition warriors or those who are in the hobby. Not everyone is like that of course. The fact that it happens helps no one espcially our hobby. Then when it happesn it's like posters and people cannot be called out on their bad behavior.
Freedom of speech is great. Freedom of speech does not immunize you from any repercussions from what you say. Nor does it entitle you to approach me in a game store and rant about how you like PF and dislike 4E. At the very least don't act "shocked" when I gert angry and tell a person to get the hell away from me. Or that it bothers me enough to defend the rpg I like. It's in the 4e section of the forums. Does anyone with any commen sense think that a anti-4E thread like the Op is not going to get a reaction.
|
|
I'm at a loss as to the deriding of either system? I firmly believe their are no bad RPG's (yes including FATAL), only bad GM's and bad players. Nothing in PF or 4e prevents me as GM to create an adventure using the frame-work and guideline presented. I would say that 4e Essentials does have an edge when it comes to MY style of GMing as I can more easily put together encounters - just less number crunching.
ONLY if I choose to turn off my brain and seek EVERY instance in the rules does an RPG fail. I rewrote Ravenloft (from the 1e module) into 4e and the players had a great time - nothing like an MMORPG by the way, and I also re-jigged the Expedition to Ravenloft (3.5e) to PF and again ran the adventure (another group) and had a good time. In both games those whose primary interest was moving little models about a battle-mat wasn't well served - but I GM to involve players in an interactive story NOT a table-top wargame.
Mind you I do understand it must be very difficult to see possibilities with your eyes firmly shut...
S.
It was right when it started, so adapting on both sides was part of it, but the flexibility you seem to like was a bit much for my tastes. Having one DM run skill challenges to the letter of what was written and another be barely within context of what is written is just a bit much. It made it hard to pin down what my character would do and how. Maybe it's just me, but when I end up having to play my character completely different every time I sit down, it's very hard to form any kind of attachment to that character. Organized play certainly brought out the worst in the system, but it did not create the pure swinginess of DM fiat having that much control that is embedded in the system.
|
|
they have translated spells and abilities for 2nd Edition and 3rd Edition into dozens of computer games
...and 1e. The old SSI games such as Curse of the Azure Bonds, Secret of the Silver Blades, and other Dragon Lance computer games predate the first MMORPG (as we know them). D&D has been and always will be translated into a new available media to enhance awareness and reach a larger audience.
S.
The false analogy argument is keenly used....
Even though this is not a false analogy you can substitute Witch for video game and the lady in question for 4E.
The analogy came about because when it was first released, it was half way seriously marketed in that vein, probably in an effort to draw the MMO crowd, and initial playtests seemed to support it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The analogy came about because when it was first released, it was half way seriously marketed in that vein, probably in an effort to draw the MMO crowd, and initial playtests seemed to support it.
That does not stop it being a false analogy. although I wish marketing worked in that way....I would definitely buy Lynx for Men.
Analogy is saying 'A is like B' and is a powerful way of explaining one thing in terms of another. Where it falls down is when A is assumed to be like B in all respects and any attribute or characteristic of B can be unequivocally attributed to A.
The typical fallacy in this is that the comparison is not a good one and creates significant falsehood.
Looking at some of the posts above, 4E mechanics are being attributed to video game design of a "hack n slash" nature. From this the analogy draws the conclusion that 4E cannot generate any roleplaying experience, depth or complexity. This is false.
4E mechanics have borrowed from video games the same may be true of 3E or previous D&D versions.....and amazingly the other way round. It is no bad thing...the use of the analogy to generate negative and false impressions is.
The analogy came about because when it was first released, it was half way seriously marketed in that vein, probably in an effort to draw the MMO crowd, and initial playtests seemed to support it.Unlikely. It came about for the same reason the exact same criticisms were lobbied at 3rd Editions - haters felt it was an easy way to criticize it without having to actually present any specific points. :P
What specific ads are you referring to? What playtests are you referring to that supported such claims?
It was never specifically stated that I know of, but it was clear from the initial marketing that they were definitely going after the MMO crowd, and while they never put it forth directly, they also never shot it down; thus, I say, half seriously, because it wasn't an overt statement made by the company, but by their doing nothing to quell it while actively seeking the MMO market, they clearly did not object too heartily to the claim when it was put forth by early players who seemed to find the evidence for it in their initial experiences. This, in turn, led to the appearance of it being an unofficial official selling point.