RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
On the other hand, individuals of my acquaintence were among the 4e playtesters and some of those provided feedback that it wasn't D&D and they would not continue to play under the proposed rules. So WotC was aware that they had issues with existing gamers, but hubris pressed them to continue with their plans.
I can assure you that your acquaintences' 4e playtest experiences and responses were not unique to that specific group.
Well, unless we know each other and are talking about the same people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On one hand, I seldom play AD&D because I liked 3.x better and I seldom play pure 3.x anymore because I like Pathfinder better. So you could say it's a possibility that in some mythical future where Hasbro puts out an RPG I think is better than Pathfinder, I might start playing it the most frequently.
However, if one of my GMs said, "Let's play AD&D" or "let's play 3.x" I'd still play it. And FURTHERMORE, if there were sourcebooks in those systems STILL being produced that were well-written and of an appealing aesthetic produced by a company with a stellar customer service, I would buy them.
So even if 5E came out and it was God's gift to fantasy gaming, I'd still buy Paizo's products because I still like Pathfinder, I still like the quality of the materials they put out, and they have an excellent customer service reputation. As long as they keep up the quality of their work, I'd support them--even if I was also buying 5E sourcebooks. Indeed, even if I stopped playing Pathfinder per se, I'd probably still buy GameMastery products and I'd still buy other Pathfinder stuff because I could convert it, and because the books are pretty and nice.
Paizo also has good footing because their bread and butter--at least as it has been explained to me--are adventure paths. Which people who don't play Pathfinder still collect and convert to the system of their choice--because they're that good. So they'll have a source of income no matter what and can make whatever game they damn well please.
Also, I don't buy 4E sourcebooks isn't because I felt I had to CHOOSE between Paizo and WotC. I don't buy 4E because I tried 4E and I didn't enjoy myself very much, and I found the writing and quality of the sourcebooks not up to my personal standards. Please note I did not say "4E sucks!" I just did not find the system to be compatible with my personal tastes, and that is all there is to it. If I liked 4E, I'd probably have both that and Pathfinder on my bookshelves, as I'd probably still like Pathfinder. I don't see why it necessarily has to be one or the other, and this sort of bizarre partisanship rends the gamer community apart for no particularly good reason save for an obsessive love of argument.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good for you? It is much easier getting people new to table top gaming into 4e, especially Essentials, than it is for Pathfinder. I'm pretty such Paizo knows this. It's why they are releasing a trimmed down version of the game that is intended for beginners. See the beginner's box.Wow - I could not DISAGREE more with this.... I often convert Pathfinder modules to 4e because it makes for a better experience for my players and myself.
I really feel they are being held back by the archaic 3.5 ruleset.
Everyone is different. I have had no problem teaching new people how to play Pathfinder. I agree that the Beginners Box will make it even easier, especially when it comes to younger players, which is a good thing.
What I primarily disagreed with was your statement that Paizo is "being held back by the archaic 3.5 ruleset"
3.5 is not an archaic ruleset. It's been around but it's not archaic. One could perhaps argue that First edition AD&D is archaic by today's standards, but not 3.5 and CERTAINLY not the Pathfinder RPG.
I am fine with someone saying that "4e makes for a better experience for your players and you" because that's your personal experience. My personal experience, as well as every single RPG player I know, is that the 4E was not a good experience - Pathfinder, however, has been a joy.
Good for you? It is much easier getting people new to table top gaming into 4e, especially Essentials, than it is for Pathfinder. I'm pretty such Paizo knows this. It's why they are releasing a trimmed down version of the game that is intended for beginners. See the beginner's box.Wow - I could not DISAGREE more with this.... I often convert Pathfinder modules to 4e because it makes for a better experience for my players and myself.
I really feel they are being held back by the archaic 3.5 ruleset.
The trick once you get them into 4E is keeping them though, and 4E has a real problem there. From what I've seen, people either love it or hate it, and that tends to lead to a loss of customers at a rate that has to have that high rate of bringing new ones in just to keep the game from shrinking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good for you? It is much easier getting people new to table top gaming into 4e, especially Essentials, than it is for Pathfinder. I'm pretty such Paizo knows this. It's why they are releasing a trimmed down version of the game that is intended for beginners. See the beginner's box.Wow - I could not DISAGREE more with this.... I often convert Pathfinder modules to 4e because it makes for a better experience for my players and myself.
I really feel they are being held back by the archaic 3.5 ruleset.
I know, right? Clunky and archaic and primitive and imagination-killing! Think of all those crappy games no-one plays anymore because they're a few years old - like chess, or whatever it's called? I mean, it's hundreds of years old, that game really needs some extra development to get people to play it. Or backgammon! Damn, that thing is thousands of years old, and is played only on the walls of tombs and maybe by ghosts, if they haven't migrated to something more fun (like 4th edition!!!)
Judging by the amount of mindshare (and marketshare) that pathfinder holds, I'd say that primitive, flint and stone chippin' 3.5/3.75 still has some life left in it. Car engines get old - role playing games and systems may fall out of favour, but it's not like they're shoved aside by the march of gaming technology - get real.
If HotC was smart, they would do what they probably half meant to do with 4e - balance the game for everyone. The problem is they overdid it and ended up limiting options. What they should do is put out a version where casters are the same and ALL melee is like Tome of Battle. Effectively, everyone is a caster. There are options galore for everyone and everyone is roughly on the same level with what they can do.
"Held back" in what way?
Using Pathfinder (or 4E, or Savage Worlds) seems like a non-factor when it comes to adventure quality. The amount of effort required to write an adventure? Absolutely. But story/setting quality? Not so much.
|
|
Good for you? It is much easier getting people new to table top gaming into 4e, especially Essentials, than it is for Pathfinder. I'm pretty such Paizo knows this. It's why they are releasing a trimmed down version of the game that is intended for beginners. See the beginner's box.Wow - I could not DISAGREE more with this.... I often convert Pathfinder modules to 4e because it makes for a better experience for my players and myself.
I really feel they are being held back by the archaic 3.5 ruleset.
Everyone is different. I have had no problem teaching new people how to play Pathfinder. I agree that the Beginners Box will make it even easier, especially when it comes to younger players, which is a good thing.
What I primarily disagreed with was your statement that Paizo is "being held back by the archaic 3.5 ruleset"
3.5 is not an archaic ruleset. It's been around but it's not archaic. One could perhaps argue that First edition AD&D is archaic by today's standards, but not 3.5 and CERTAINLY not the Pathfinder RPG.
I am fine with someone saying that "4e makes for a better experience for your players and you" because that's your personal experience. My personal experience, as well as every single RPG player I know, is that the 4E was not a good experience - Pathfinder, however, has been a joy.
Archaic in the sense that it's old fashioned. Yes, I'd say that's true. How many mechanics has Paizo been forced to keep so they can maintain backwards compatibility? It leads to a convoluted system. Take how defenses work. You have AC, touch AC, flatfooted AC, etc. Then you have combat maneuver defense. Then you have three types of saving throws. Don't even get me started about the host of design issues that occur because of multiclassing.
Paizo should not be afraid to move forward and change the system. That will, above all things, cause stagnation.
|
|
"Held back" in what way?
Using Pathfinder (or 4E, or Savage Worlds) seems like a non-factor when it comes to adventure quality. The amount of effort required to write an adventure? Absolutely. But story/setting quality? Not so much.
Paizo's biggest strength is the quality of their setting and adventures.
In fact, I'd say when it comes to settings (ie Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, etc) Wizards are the archaic ones (I really wish Drizzt would just die).
EDIT: Held back as in not coming out with a new rules edition/version.
(I really wish Drizzt would just die).
That's crazy!!! How dare you! I.....
.....hmmm, actually, I kinda agree with you about that. Maybe nicely, though, like in his sleep or something?
I do disagree about the campaign settings, though. In keeping with the advancing technology of the 4th edition, Wizards moved the forgotten realms "forward" both in time and, in their opinion, conceptually and look at the horrid mess they caused. A grotesque mockery of the world that was loved by many. Is that progress, sir?
|
|
(I really wish Drizzt would just die).That's crazy!!! How dare you! I.....
.....hmmm, actually, I kinda agree with you about that. Maybe nicely, though, like in his sleep or something?
I do disagree about the campaign settings, though. In keeping with the advancing technology of the 4th edition, Wizards moved the forgotten realms "forward" both in time and, in their opinion, conceptually and look at the horrid mess they caused. A grotesque mockery of the world that was loved by many. Is that progress, sir?
I'm not arguing in support of Forgotten Realms. Eberron is a different story (still my favorite setting to this day) but that's stagnated because of lack of updates.
WotC's progress has been with the core rules.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I care -- both because I curious what they might cook up, and because I'm interested in the potential effect on the industry.My 2 copper:
I am going to make a bold statement.
WHO CARES WHAT WOTC DOSE, IF THERE IS A 5E OR NOT, IF THEY MOVE EVERYTHING ON LINE OR NOT!
:-P
:-P
Sorry, I get paid $.25 for each one. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Archaic? I sometimes get out my blue book rules set, including the last book of my original box set (Monster and Treasure assortment LBB)and play by those rules. I started this ride in 1976,now that's archaic! But you know, I don't mind playing either Pathfinder or 4.0, and have played both for players who want to do that, but to a guy like me, neither one of them is "really" Dungeons and Dragons.
*laugh* you too? (well not 1976 here, but still).
Heck I still like Star Frontiers (but not Zebulon's guide) and MSH.
neither one of them is "really" Dungeons and Dragons.
Hehehehe, Amen to that brother.
|
There is nothing that WotC can do to regain my trust or business. Hasbro/WotC underestimated the effect that an alienated segment of their fan base would have. They guessed wrong. I, for one, hope that they have to live with the consequences for some time ... (all the way to the bank)^-1.
Paizo didn't treat their customers as fungible revenue units. Loyalty and integrity count.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm not arguing in support of Forgotten Realms. Eberron is a different story (still my favorite setting to this day) but that's stagnated because of lack of updates.
WotC's progress has been with the core rules.
I just think Drizzt has been overused. Besides I liked Aerlyn and Danilo (and Elaith) better. :-)
Of all my stolen books, Eberron is the one setting I'm trying to recover.
I do think 'world stagnation' is one of the effets of the 4.x marketing plan* I hated the most. Really guys? If you're not going to do anything with Dragonlance, why not let MWP keep publishing? Why not let Ravenloft keep going under White Wolf's hands?** Why not let a small 3pp rent out Dark Sun or SpellJammer, etc. Put in the license it has to be 4.x or better still just let them run with it. They do all the work, and you still get kickbacks. (I know some people like Cortex, so why not Cortex DL?)***
Of course after the ending of the licenses, I doubt now anyone would trust WotC without a legion of Clarks to check the contract language...
*
**
***
|
In my opinion, all Paizo needs to do is keep on doing what drew me from 4E to Pathfinder: keep making great Adventure Paths and keep supporting Pathfinder Society organized play.
I always liked the Adventure Paths and would read them even before I started playing Pathfinder. After years of playing the same modules and Wizards finally setting Living Forgotten Realms adrift, my wife and I came over to Pathfinder Society and enjoy it many times more. Even the simple statement of "you're all members of a treasure and adventure seeking organization" made the experience of playing with strangers a lot more cohesive and coherent.
Since then I've become a Golarion/Pathfinder fanboy, as my subscriptions denote. So long as Paizo keeps putting out quality products and doing a fantastic job listening to its player base then they will have my monetary support.
WotC's progress has been with the core rules.
Okay, well, let's run with that. So, you must believe that essentials was a gaming system technology leap (or at least, an incremental step) forward for 4th edition, right? I mean, it's newer than the original 4th edition, so it must be better, yes? Advancing technology and avoiding stagnation and all that.
Is continuing development and revisement of essentials where you think 5th edition should go? Or do you think WoTCs' secret R&D labs are cooking up something far more revolutionary and earth shattering? Some sort of gaming tech which will be to gaming what jet planes were to aviation?
|
|
Okay, well, let's run with that. So, you must believe that essentials was a gaming system technology leap (or at least, an incremental step) forward for 4th edition, right? I mean, it's newer than the original 4th edition, so it must be better, yes? Advancing technology and avoiding stagnation and all that.
Yeah, I think the Essentials line is solid a improvement to the 4e system. It helps to solve a number of problems I had with the original 4e material.
There's also the monster updates 4e did after the second monster manual. Then the skill DC changes. All pretty large, system wide changes.
These are incremental steps that add to and improve the core 4e rules. I'd like to see Paizo do more of that. I'm hoping the beginner's box will deliver.
Is continuing development and revisement of essentials where you think 5th edition should go? Or do you think WoTCs' secret R&D labs are cooking up something far more revolutionary and earth shattering? Some sort of gaming tech which will be to gaming what jet planes were to aviation?
I don't think they are cooking up a 5th edition at all. If they are, its a long ways out.
I don't think they are cooking up a 5th edition at all. If they are, its a long ways out.
I would have to go with the latter statement. Unless they are radically departing from 3.5's life cycle, which the timing of Essentials makes seem unlikely, 4E is on the backside of it's supported life. It still has a ways to go, but to think that they haven't at least started thinking about it's replacement seems a bit naive given WotC's history.
|
|
I don't think they are cooking up a 5th edition at all. If they are, its a long ways out.I would have to go with the latter statement. Unless they are radically departing from 3.5's life cycle, which the timing of Essentials makes seem unlikely, 4E is on the backside of it's supported life. It still has a ways to go, but to think that they haven't at least started thinking about it's replacement seems a bit naive given WotC's history.
I don't think they are actively looking for a replacement edition. They are looking to improve their system where it needs improvement. That may or may not warrant a new edition.
|
|
To get me back as a regular customer, WotC basically would have to reset the Forgotten Realms to the pre-4E standard as far as the setting and the product policy is concerned. I don't care too much about what they do ruleswise and as long as I can recognize it as D&D, it's playable for me.
On the other hand I'm with Paizo not primarily because of the rules system but because of their adventures (Paths) and their setting. So even if I would return into the D&D fold I can't imagine canceling my subscriptions just because of that. Which means that Paizo wouldn't lose a single copper from my pocket.
But as I am a lazy guy whose main reason to prefer 3.X/Pathfinder over other systems is that in the meantime he knows the system pretty well, it's much more probable that I'd stay with Paizo and simply added those WotC setting products I'm interested in and not even think one minute about their new system edition.
Meaning that as far as I am concerned, Paizo needn't to be concerned too much.
I don't think they are actively looking for a replacement edition. They are looking to improve their system where it needs improvement. That may or may not warrant a new edition.I don't think they are cooking up a 5th edition at all. If they are, its a long ways out.I would have to go with the latter statement. Unless they are radically departing from 3.5's life cycle, which the timing of Essentials makes seem unlikely, 4E is on the backside of it's supported life. It still has a ways to go, but to think that they haven't at least started thinking about it's replacement seems a bit naive given WotC's history.
I think Monte's hiring, as well as the ruminations of Mike Mearls in his (now former) online soapbox, indicate that a 5th edition is definitely in the works. Maybe not for release next year, but sooner than you might think, and perhaps in a form you didn't anticipate. You might wanna catch up on those articles; this whole thread has (at least ostensibly) been about a possible 5th edition and its' effect on Pathfinder.
To get me back as a regular customer, WotC basically would have to reset the Forgotten Realms to the pre-4E standard as far as the setting and the product policy is concerned. I don't care too much about what they do ruleswise and as long as I can recognize it as D&D, it's playable for me.
I really don't think they're going to do that; to be fair, the realms have been in decline for some time, perhaps since the fall of the Gods, which wasn't in any way WoTCs' fault. The 4th edition reconceptualization was just the final nail, in my opinion.
I'd say just run the realms the way you want them; but availability of supplements and sourcebooks are relatively scarce, and Wizards certainly won't be reprinting older, 1st - 3rd edition stuff any time soon. I hope you have a hoard of legacy books to use, as I do.
|
|
I don't think they are actively looking for a replacement edition. They are looking to improve their system where it needs improvement. That may or may not warrant a new edition.I don't think they are cooking up a 5th edition at all. If they are, its a long ways out.I would have to go with the latter statement. Unless they are radically departing from 3.5's life cycle, which the timing of Essentials makes seem unlikely, 4E is on the backside of it's supported life. It still has a ways to go, but to think that they haven't at least started thinking about it's replacement seems a bit naive given WotC's history.I think Monte's hiring, as well as the ruminations of Mike Mearls in his (now former) online soapbox, indicate that a 5th edition is definitely in the works. Maybe not for release next year, but sooner than you might think, and perhaps in a form you didn't anticipate. You might wanna catch up on those articles; this whole thread has (at least ostensibly) been about a possible 5th edition and its' effect on Pathfinder.
I've read those articles. It doesn't mean what they're working on is a new edition. The same cries of "new edition" occurred leading up to the Essentials line. Once published people realized it was just a bunch of new options despite being a rather large production.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I care -- both because I curious what they might cook up, and because I'm interested in the potential effect on the industry.My 2 copper:
I am going to make a bold statement.
WHO CARES WHAT WOTC DOSE, IF THERE IS A 5E OR NOT, IF THEY MOVE EVERYTHING ON LINE OR NOT!
You both missed and made my point. Pathfinder and D&D 4th are 2 different games. They have split and gone in very different ways. That is a GOOD thing. D&D is not the industry. It is part of the industry not THE industry. It's like asking what will PAIZO do because of Mutants & Masterminds 3rd, Hero 6th (yes there on the 6th ed), or Savage Worlds Deluxe?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Archaic in the sense that it's old fashioned. Yes, I'd say that's true. How many mechanics has Paizo been forced to keep so they can maintain backwards compatibility? It leads to a convoluted system. Take how defenses work. You have AC, touch AC, flatfooted AC, etc. Then you have combat maneuver defense. Then you have three types of saving throws. Don't even get me started about the host of design issues that occur because of multiclassing.
Paizo should not be afraid to move forward and change the system. That will, above all things, cause stagnation.
Thats why its the best selling rpg in indurstry right? Because its old fashioned and mechanically unsound?
Some people like the complexity that comes from having multiple defenses, in fact apparently alot of people do. It allows for a multitude of mechanical options. Lord knows 3.x and pathfinder fans like options. We gobble them up like candy, if you unify mechanics and simplify them, it definately makes the game easier to play/teach, and it makes things more streamlined (all good points for 4E), but it also makes options and choices less meaningful. I am a voracious devourer of option books, but in the 4E games i have played in i found it hard to get excited over a new power or ability, because they were all largely the same. They were remarkably well balanced, they were simple to understand and use, and I never felt like anyone overshadowed anyone else, but I was not intellectually engaged the way I am with a pathfinder character.
The reality is, there's no 'right' way, its a matter of setting goals for your game design. 4E created many problems as well as solved them, it has plenty of design issues as well. Pathfinder solved some 3.x problems, retained others and created new ones. No system will be perfect. Its all about design goals and what kind of game you prefer. All those 'archaic' mechanics that pathfinder kept around meant that people who wanted to play a certain kind of game can do so.
It is really hard to argue that Paizo were in error when they have achieved such astounding success in selling their rpg products.
The smartest thing WotC could do is start a splinter company or fund another company who they placed a WotC operative at the top and release 5e that way. It would have to be under a different name of course. Then they claim to have kept the 4e crowd while they also benefit off the 5e profits by their shadow company and possibly take away money from paizo. This new company could have great customer support to keep players happy too. A whole new image for a whole new game.
WotC could be the bilderberg of table top games. +1 for you if you know what bilderberg is without googling it.
In the spirit of wild speculation...
Maybe this already happened... Lisa used to work for wizards (in fact she was I believe one of their first employees, and then paizo was partnered closely with wizards on the magazine line. Then they broke off and did their own thing under an aparent fall out. Oh know they are already taking over [remainder of post redacted]
So what should/will Paizo do to respond to and how will Pathfinder be impacted by 5e D&D?
Should Paizo simply attempt to continue its plan for the PFRPG without change and stress stability and/or backward compatibility?
Should Paizo release a 2nd edition of the PFRPG to compete for novelty value?
Should Paizo try to sell itself (perhaps even to WotC/Hasbro) along with the PFRPG?
Should Paizo do an update/refresh of the PFRPG – i.e. PFRPG revised/1.5e akin to what D&D 3.5E did with respect to 3E?
Should Paizo expand the PFRPG system in new directions, such as science fiction, wild west, modern, etcetera?
Should Paizo revert to 3PP status, abandon PFRPG and throw itself behind supporting 5e (depending on the terms offered by a licensing agreement – if any)?
Hmmm... good question. I have no idea what they should do.
I do know, however, that for me, as long as I can continue to play Paizo's APs and modules with the 3.5 rules with minimal conversion, then I will continue to buy them.
As soon as I can't, I'll dump Paizo in a second.
Archaic in the sense that it's old fashioned. Yes, I'd say that's true. How many mechanics has Paizo been forced to keep so they can maintain backwards compatibility? It leads to a convoluted system. Take how defenses work. You have AC, touch AC, flatfooted AC, etc. Then you have combat maneuver defense. Then you have three types of saving throws. Don't even get me started about the host of design issues that occur because of multiclassing.
Paizo should not be afraid to move forward and change the system. That will, above all things, cause stagnation.
I am pretty sure WOTC learned how stagnant the 3.5 rules system was when half of their fans left after they updated to 'modern' sensibilities. No I think you vastly underestimate the effectiveness of those 'old' rules.
Thats why its the best selling rpg in indurstry right? Because its old fashioned and mechanically unsound?
Some people like the complexity that comes from having multiple defenses, in fact apparently alot of people do. It allows for a multitude of mechanical options. Lord knows 3.x and pathfinder fans like options. We gobble them up like candy, if you unify mechanics and simplify them, it definately makes the game easier to play/teach, and it makes things more streamlined (all good points for 4E), but it also makes options and choices less meaningful. I am a voracious devourer of option books, but in the 4E games i have played in i found it hard to get excited over a new power or ability, because they were all largely the same. They were remarkably well balanced, they were simple to understand and use, and I never felt like anyone overshadowed anyone else, but I was not intellectually engaged the way I am with a pathfinder character.
The reality is, there's no 'right' way, its a matter of setting goals for your game design. 4E created many problems as well as solved them, it has plenty of design issues as well. Pathfinder solved some 3.x problems, retained others and created new ones. No system will be perfect. Its all about design goals and what kind of game you prefer. All those 'archaic' mechanics that pathfinder kept around meant that people who wanted to play a certain kind of game can do so.
It is...
I agree with you thouroughly. This is the problem RPG's are going to face, and it has nothing to do with rules:
It is the way table top games are played. People in their teens now, in general, do not want to sit around a table and play the game. Doesn't matter what the rules are. The teenage generation received and processes information in a way that is not complementary to TTG. I love books, I love reading, and I love studying. This new generation, does not care about the bound book. They want their information in quick digestible bytes.
Eventually for this hobby market to succeed, the delivery of information is going to have to change. Not the rules. WOTC is going in that direction, I beleive but there is much more to it.
The teens are interested in the genre culture now. They will play games as part of that culture, but I think the days of grabbing your books, getting together with your friends, ordering pizza, and gorging on chips are only being kept alive by older fans. I would say 25 and above.
Education on both the secondary and university level sees they need to change. Traditional TTG borrows alot from the education model.
I am a member of a LARP with about 150 people that show up at a given event. MANY of these people are about 16. They LOVE fantasy. They LOVE Horror. Getting any of them to sit down to table top is near impossible.
Of course not but you can still compare the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. For Paizo its the strict adherence to the 3.5 ruleset. For WotC its their limp campaign settings.
Pathfinder solved some 3.x problems, retained others and created new ones. No system will be perfect.
You are mistaken if you think 4E's primary weakness is campaign settings. It is based on your preferences, but that is not a universal truth. There are a tons of pure homebrewers who's decision to move to pathfinder had nothing to do with campaign setting. And there are those that have brought WoTC campaign settings like dark sun, forgotten realms, and Ravenloft to pathfinder.
I strongly disagree with the opinion that 3.5e/Pathfinder is a worse ruleset than 4e. There are no objective criteria to judge how good a ruleset is, since we assign different value to different ruleset features. For example, I assign a rather large value to mechanical diversity between classes, so that's one reason (though by no means the only reason) why I find the 3.5e/Pathfinder ruleset far superior to the 4e one. You might not be too bothered by that and might instead value balance between classes (which I also value, but often less than inter-class diversity) more, in which case your preferences would be the reverse of mine.
Regarding your setting assessment, I also disagree. I think WotC has some very good campaign settings. Dark Sun was awesome, as were others. Golarion may or may not be good - I am not familiar enough with it to be able to judge, but I am familiar enough with the WotC settings to say that they have some real gems there.
|
|
I strongly disagree with the opinion that 3.5e/Pathfinder is a worse ruleset than 4e. There are no objective criteria to judge how good a ruleset is, since we assign different value to different ruleset features. For example, I assign a rather large value to mechanical diversity between classes, so that's one reason (though by no means the only reason) why I find the 3.5e/Pathfinder ruleset far superior to the 4e one. You might not be too bothered by that and might instead value balance between classes (which I also value, but often less than inter-class diversity) more, in which case your preferences would be the reverse of mine.
I dunno. You just listed a number of objective criteria right there. Rules complexity. Number choices. Balance. Ease of learning.
Regarding your setting assessment, I also disagree. I think WotC has some very good campaign settings. Dark Sun was awesome, as were others. Golarion may or may not be good - I am not familiar enough with it to be able to judge, but I am familiar enough with the WotC settings to say that they have some real gems there.
I will rephrase that. WotC does have a number of great settings. I mentioned earlier that Eberron is still one of my favorites. However, WotC simply doesn't support their settings was well as Paizo does. I feel that's an objective fact based on the amount of material Paizo has produced for their setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I strongly disagree with the opinion that 3.5e/Pathfinder is a worse ruleset than 4e. There are no objective criteria to judge how good a ruleset is, since we assign different value to different ruleset features. For example, I assign a rather large value to mechanical diversity between classes, so that's one reason (though by no means the only reason) why I find the 3.5e/Pathfinder ruleset far superior to the 4e one. You might not be too bothered by that and might instead value balance between classes (which I also value, but often less than inter-class diversity) more, in which case your preferences would be the reverse of mine.I dunno. You just listed a number of objective criteria right there. Rules complexity. Number choices. Balance. Ease of learning.
Right, but the value of each of those criteria is subjectively determined by the individual. Hence, the resulting ranking of RPG systems in how 'good' they are would be subjective.
Regarding your setting assessment, I also disagree. I think WotC has some very good campaign settings. Dark Sun was awesome, as were others. Golarion may or may not be good - I am not familiar enough with it to be able to judge, but I am familiar enough with the WotC settings to say that they have some real gems there.I will rephrase that. WotC does have a number of great settings. I mentioned earlier that Eberron is still one of my favorites. However, WotC simply doesn't support their settings was well as Paizo does. I feel that's an objective fact based on the amount of material Paizo has produced for their setting.
That may well be. I am unfamiliar with the extent of support WotC currently provides for its settings. From what I have heard, it seems that the flavor conversion of those settings to 4E has been a mixed bag, with Forgotten Realms violated, Eberron done OK and Dark Sun done very well. As to post-conversion support the settings have received, however, I lack the knowledge to comment.
|
|
Right, but the value of each of those criteria is subjectively determined by the individual. Hence, the resulting ranking of RPG systems in how 'good' they are would be subjective.
You can objectively say one game is easier to play or is more balanced by using certain metrics (ie number of rules, number of choices, length of turns, preparation time, mistakes made, decision trees, etc). Sure, individual people may assign different weights to those metrics but its entirely possible to find an objective measurement of good.
That may well be. I am unfamiliar with the extent of support WotC currently provides for its settings. From what I have heard, it seems that the flavor conversion of those settings to 4E has been a mixed bag, with Forgotten Realms violated, Eberron done OK and Dark Sun done very well. As to post-conversion support the settings have...
There's simply not a lot of depth to any single setting released during 4e. Each setting gets a player's guide, a campaign setting and maybe an adventure or two. Compare that to Paizo where its all about their setting.
If simplicity was a measure of good, we would all be playing Toon.
I like simplicity, but I love options too, to each his own.
I don't think 4E acomplished anything good, that's not balance, is using the same sheet with diferent names. And the suspension of disbelief is way up there. But, tastes are indeed complicated.