'Future of D&D' article


4th Edition

151 to 200 of 258 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Rockheimr wrote:

I think the article reads as the WOTC guys coming up with some pretty odd reasons for 4e's low sales over the past couple of years. (Or as a friend of mine put it; 'Moving markers for armies that no longer exist around maps in their bunker.')

As someone mentions upthread Mearls seems to say 4e was written for the unimaginative. (I can't read his words any other way.) Hardly tactful.

Ryan Dancey says tabletop rpgs are dead or dying. ...Not clear why a 'VP of rpgs' would say that, seems like publicly saying you are no longer needed to do your job?

They toss and turn with comments about 'eras of rpg decadence'(!?), and how 'perfectly balanced' 4e is, like they are priests of a dying faith. Seriously guys, if the rpg industry is dying, how come smaller rpg companies such as Paizo are booming?

Tabletop rpgs are not dying, D&D (4e) is. It's that simple. I'll let you in on a secret, you don't need to wrack your brains over roleplaying philosophies, just make genuinely good roleplaying products. I only don't buy WOTC products these days because each and every time I idly pick one up to browse in the shop they don't appeal to me - they seem shallow, lacking in colour, setting detail, and flavour, to me they seem to lack interesting stories, characters, and settings. Even the art style doesn't appeal to me.

WOTC does of course have a major problem with the inevitable 5e, if they go back they would not only have to eat major crow and backtread on almost every press statement they ever made about 4e, but they'd piss off the very vocal pro-4e lobby and possibly lose customers there ... but if they press ahead with a version of 4e upgraded a bit, then it would be unlikely to reverse the apparent downward plummet of their sales figures, as those of us who hate 4e as an rpg system would be unlikely to embrace a somewhat amended version of it. Tricky.

Personally I think their only chance to turn it around is try something rather more radical. Try to create a new system that is as good at non-combat stuff as...

Spot on Rockhemir :)


Scott Betts wrote:
1st Edition AD&D only had Bard, Thief, Cleric, Monk, Fighter, Mage, with a handful of sub-classes.

Huh? You must have a really wonky definition of "subclass" (you're considering the paladin a subclass, but not the bard??). Certainly the 1E druid class was not particularly related to the 1E cleric class.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:

I will preface this by noting that your last two posts have made your position much clearer.

Elton wrote:
I couldn't figure out how to play the kind of character I wanted to play unless I reversed engineered a couple of things in the game. 4th Edition was overly weighted towards the Adventurer. I wanted rules for a host of non-adventuring professions and to prove it, I wanted to build a Noble.

Dungeons & Dragons is about adventuring. It would be sort of insane if they didn't make a game heavily weighted towards the adventurer.

And before you try, no. It's about adventuring.

Quote:
The closest I got to was creating a Warlord that didn't use his powers. I never got the chance to play him because everyone thought I was breaking the game. I wasn't, I tried to push it in a direction I wanted it to go (Versatility.)

I'm not sure why anyone thought you were breaking the game by purposefully sucking. That seems weird. Maybe they just thought you were being a bad party member because you refused to use your actual abilities.

Quote:
I quickly found out it was impossible given the rule set.

I don't see how playing a noble is impossible. I played a half-elf warlock who was part of a noble line for a good 20 levels.

What you're saying is simply false. You can play a noble. I daresay some of us have done it. You are also going to be playing an adventurer, however, because Dungeons & Dragons is a game about adventuring.

Quote:
If I successfully pushed 4th were I wanted it to go, it wouldn't be 4th anymore. To play D&D 4th ed is to play a rigid rules set.

4e is far more flexible than you give it credit for. Your insistence that you cannot play a noble despite the fact that people do it all the time is proof of this.

Quote:
If have a blacksmith NPC, I want rules to play that Blacksmith NPC as a DM.
Why is it important to you, as a DM, that you have rules for playing the blacksmith? You are the DM. You are free to have...

Scott, your opinions differs from Elton (and mine) but one fact remains, 4E flop and they are making 5E. And before you say its hasbro appetite for profit or shrinking market, then don't cos otherwise, hasbro will not venture into 5E. They will either sell or kill the franchise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hogarth wrote:
Huh? You must have a really wonky definition of "subclass" (you're considering the paladin a subclass, but not the bard??). Certainly the 1E druid class was not particularly related to the 1E cleric class.

In 1E, the Paladin and Ranger were subclasses of the Fighter class. The Druid was a subclass of the Cleric class. The Illusionist was a subclass of the Magic-User class. The Assassin was a subclass of the Thief class. The Monk was a class in and of itself, and the Bard was a wonky sort of multiclass.

Of course, the definition of a subclass is not given, and there seems no significant difference (beyond name) between class and subclass in 1E.


mousey wrote:
Scott, your opinions differs from Elton (and mine) but one fact remains, 4E flop and they are making 5E. And before you say its hasbro appetite for profit or shrinking market, then don't cos otherwise, hasbro will not venture into 5E. They will either sell or kill the franchise.

From the Escapist:

"The announcement of a new D&D doesn't mean that 4th edition is now a lame duck. Wizards recognizes that the game still has a very loyal following, and pledges to continue supporting 4th edition during the testing cycle of the new edition and beyond. "We plan to continue offering people access to tools like the D&D Character Builder and the D&D Monster Builder to support 4th edition," Mearls said. "We're also exploring ideas for conversion tools so that some of the 4th edition characters and content will be playable with the next edition." In other words, Wizards vows it's not replacing 4th edition, but merely adding another layer of rules that will cater to the people unhappy with the latest edition's changes."

So while it's not directly being supported, it might be somehow in some form with 5E. I'm happy about this news. So perhaps it's not really a failure if they're still going to support it in some fashion.


Though there's a big difference between not shutting down DDI and working on new publications.


Diffan wrote:
So while it's not directly being supported, it might be somehow in some form with 5E. I'm happy about this news. So perhaps it's not really a failure if they're still going to support it in some fashion.

My reading of what Mearls has said seems a good indication the new edition is going to try to support all editions, not just 4e. If that's the case, I can't see how anyone could be unhappy with it, unless it extends itself too far, which is a different sort of danger.


I wouldn't call a rpg that was #1 best selling for years and still #2 after pathfinder took the top spot a flop.


I think they'll rather dump everything and come up with something new, that supports the style of any older edition. I rather doubt that you'll be able to use any stats from any older edition books in the new game.


hogarth wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
1st Edition AD&D only had Bard, Thief, Cleric, Monk, Fighter, Mage, with a handful of sub-classes.
Huh? You must have a really wonky definition of "subclass" (you're considering the paladin a subclass, but not the bard??). Certainly the 1E druid class was not particularly related to the 1E cleric class.

I used the Character Class Wikipedia page to help compile those, since I don't have any 1st ed AD&D books handy. It may very well be that you're correct, in which case I'd suggest going behind the curtain over at Wikipedia and making a correction.

Liberty's Edge

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Hogarth wrote:
Huh? You must have a really wonky definition of "subclass" (you're considering the paladin a subclass, but not the bard??). Certainly the 1E druid class was not particularly related to the 1E cleric class.

In 1E, the Paladin and Ranger were subclasses of the Fighter class. The Druid was a subclass of the Cleric class. The Illusionist was a subclass of the Magic-User class. The Assassin was a subclass of the Thief class. The Monk was a class in and of itself, and the Bard was a wonky sort of multiclass.

Of course, the definition of a subclass is not given, and there seems no significant difference (beyond name) between class and subclass in 1E.

The only mechanical effect of the subclass system in 1e was to designate which combat and saving throw tables the characters used, with the monk splitting between two different subclass designations. Otherwise, the moniker was meaningless.


mousey wrote:
Scott, your opinions differs from Elton (and mine) but one fact remains, 4E flop and they are making 5E.

I think your definition of "flop" also differs from mine.

Quote:
And before you say its hasbro appetite for profit or shrinking market, then don't cos otherwise, hasbro will not venture into 5E. They will either sell or kill the franchise.

Hasbro is not known for doing either of those things. They don't sell properties. The most likely scenario in which they don't continue to produce D&D material is that the property is shelved for a decade and then revived.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
1st Edition AD&D only had Bard, Thief, Cleric, Monk, Fighter, Mage, with a handful of sub-classes.
Huh? You must have a really wonky definition of "subclass" (you're considering the paladin a subclass, but not the bard??). Certainly the 1E druid class was not particularly related to the 1E cleric class.
I used the Character Class Wikipedia page to help compile those, since I don't have any 1st ed AD&D books handy. It may very well be that you're correct, in which case I'd suggest going behind the curtain over at Wikipedia and making a correction.

Yeah, Wikipedia is really wonky with a lot of factual stuff. Especially in articles most people aren't going to care about accuracy as much as a general overview.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
mousey wrote:
Scott, your opinions differs from Elton (and mine) but one fact remains, 4E flop and they are making 5E.

I think your definition of "flop" also differs from mine.

Quote:
And before you say its hasbro appetite for profit or shrinking market, then don't cos otherwise, hasbro will not venture into 5E. They will either sell or kill the franchise.
Hasbro is not known for doing either of those things. They don't sell properties. The most likely scenario in which they don't continue to produce D&D material is that the property is shelved for a decade and then revived.

It isn't as much that 4e "flopped", quite a few people enjoy the game, after all. Maybe by Hasbro standards it isn't a success, but then, Hasbro doesn't really grok our market, I think.

I think the decision has more to do with some marketing mistakes WotC is privately admitting, and Mearls is trying to sugar coat that with his observations on some mechanical stuff. I think the split in the community and the lost opportunity to be more open and less, well, arrogant with the way they presented the edition change weighs heavily on some people there. I don't think they anticipated Paizo fully taking advantage of the OGL, and the acrimony that existed in '08. And pulling the PDFs was truly a bone headed move which created a good deal of ill will towards Wizards.

So, they're going to try to mend those wounds, and make a game with broader appeal. I wish them luck, and I hope they do it well. They won't get some people back, but I think if they avoid a lot of the mistakes they made in '08 and '09, they should be able rebuild some bridges.


houstonderek wrote:
The only mechanical effect of the subclass system in 1e was to designate which combat and saving throw tables the characters used, with the monk splitting between two different subclass designations. Otherwise, the moniker was meaningless.

I thought you also couldn't dual class as a druid/cleric or paladin/ranger, for instance, but maybe I'm misremembering.

Liberty's Edge

I know you couldn't multi-class (after UA when everything opened up a bit for demi-humans) in two classes from the same sub group, but I don't remember if there were restrictions on dual-classing. Hmmm.

Ok, add one more relatively minor mechanical effect then, as multi-classing was restricted on so many levels anyway.

Liberty's Edge

Diffan wrote:
mousey wrote:
Scott, your opinions differs from Elton (and mine) but one fact remains, 4E flop and they are making 5E. And before you say its hasbro appetite for profit or shrinking market, then don't cos otherwise, hasbro will not venture into 5E. They will either sell or kill the franchise.

From the Escapist:

"The announcement of a new D&D doesn't mean that 4th edition is now a lame duck. Wizards recognizes that the game still has a very loyal following, and pledges to continue supporting 4th edition during the testing cycle of the new edition and beyond. "We plan to continue offering people access to tools like the D&D Character Builder and the D&D Monster Builder to support 4th edition," Mearls said. "We're also exploring ideas for conversion tools so that some of the 4th edition characters and content will be playable with the next edition." In other words, Wizards vows it's not replacing 4th edition, but merely adding another layer of rules that will cater to the people unhappy with the latest edition's changes."

So while it's not directly being supported, it might be somehow in some form with 5E. I'm happy about this news. So perhaps it's not really a failure if they're still going to support it in some fashion.

Diffan, that's marketing talk. They said almost the same when announcing for 4E. Just wait n see. It's the same when i (and many others) said when 4E is out....it will not last long.

Otherwise, from now till 5E, their sales on 4E will plummet even more if they say it will not be supported (remember d&d mini?)

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
mousey wrote:
Scott, your opinions differs from Elton (and mine) but one fact remains, 4E flop and they are making 5E.

I think your definition of "flop" also differs from mine.

Quote:
And before you say its hasbro appetite for profit or shrinking market, then don't cos otherwise, hasbro will not venture into 5E. They will either sell or kill the franchise.
Hasbro is not known for doing either of those things. They don't sell properties. The most likely scenario in which they don't continue to produce D&D material is that the property is shelved for a decade and then revived.

Scott, possibly our definition differs. I owned 4E too (before i tossed everything away). 4E is definitely balanced more than 3.5E. It's "fun" ( but for me, left a strange taste after a game) n plot is no less than before. There's much in it but isn't what we detractors are looking for. There's where it "flopped". It lost too much market (and market is still there otherwise hasbro will can it). Before you say otherwise, hasbro is KNOWN for doing this. Obviously you're not aware of the other products from them. If they don't sell, they kill it. Revive? Right. After there is interest again. Think transformer. What about heroscape? D&D minis game?

Anyway, what i'm saying is if hasbro don't think that the market is still there, they will do any of the above except come out with a 5E.

For those who enjoys 4E, it's good but there isn't enough for them to carry on 4E. Yet they know the market is still there so they are not putting it out or in hibernation but coming out with 5E to take back more share. As for support previous editions, c'mon. There will be a major compromise. If thr team can do it and still attract back the majority, good for them. Otherwise, good luck to them. And if i am in hasbro's mgt, i will cut losses then n do the necessary.

Liberty's Edge

Starglyte wrote:
I wouldn't call a rpg that was #1 best selling for years and still #2 after pathfinder took the top spot a flop.

Once again, i repeat that the facts speaks for itself. They are killing 4E for 5E. Find some old posts when Wizards release 4E. They claimed it is the best of all versions and it is here to stay for many many years! Yet it is going to be replaced soon after what, 3-4 years? Is it a last minute decision or are the signs there since year 1 or 2? Moreover, do you think 5E will take 5 years more to release? If so, they will not announce it now...why impact their sales now? I suspect it is round the corner barring hiccups in their construction.

As i mentioned to Scott, to those who like the game, of course its not a flop. But most importantly to the community as a whole and to hasbro, it is. Moreover, who says it is number 2? In terms of players base? Hasbro don't care. In terms of sales? Hasbro don't care. ROI? Yes. We are here on this thread talking about the future of D&D. Hence, why 5E and what needs to be there. If hasbro retains 4E flavor, then in that perspective, it will definitely still be a flop. Of course, there are still many possibilities of flopping (angering the 4E base, not recapturing the market share, etc).

The amazing thing is, many other companies of rpg manage to churn out systems with less and yet capture significant share. In order for them to survive, hasbro/wotc needs number 1 and by a significant amount or else, improve productivity. Do more with less. Remember the d&d franchise isn't just us rpger. Its more than that. Much much more.

Liberty's Edge

Enough said. Please read the article linked as "present". It portrays the current state and hence paints the canvas why there is a need for 5E. Read it and understand why it "flopped"

Andy wants to give it a modern "computer" game.

Young designers out to prove themselves.

OGL? Not just that.

Many giants of d&d not understanding why 4E is made as it is.

Many many more..read it. Doesn't mean it isn't fun. Doesn't mean it isn't balanced. Doesn't mean that there aren't people who like it. But it is not D&D.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mousey wrote:


Many many more..read it. Doesn't mean it isn't fun. Doesn't mean it isn't balanced. Doesn't mean that there aren't people who like it. But it is not D&D.

Well it is, because it has the name and everything. The problem is many people think D&D is about the rules, the sacred cows, the number of classes in the PHB or the Races or auto-hit Magic Missile or some perverse notion that wizards need to be able to bend time and space and Fighters should sit in their castle and retire after 11th level or blah-blah-blah. It's not, it's about roleplaying a character with your friends. It's about rolling dice and imagining your fighting a huge dragon. It's about falling down a spike pit trap because you failed your Perception check even though the corridor looked fine. THAT's what D&D is. It transcends rules. It transcends editions. 4E did everything other editons of D&D were capable of doing. People just didn't like the way it was done. Just because I despite the very existance of AD&D/2E and think it's a pile of garbage mechanics doesn't mean I don't think it's D&D, because it is.

It didn't sell for a multitude of reasons, which I feel a fraction of it was due to it's rules. I wish they had put more thought into the Marketing aspect, understanding that many people are WAAAY too passionate about this than they were and could not accept critical options of the, then, current system. Fuel that fire with the sweeping changes to the Forgotten Realms and it's not looking pretty right from the get-go.

But what's done is done. They're a company that makes stuff I like and there's nothing really to say after that. They'll either produce things that I like or they won't. Heck, I doubt I've given Pathfinder more than a few bucks because everything is free online, so why would I? Pathfinder practically fueled my desire to give WotC money because I HAD to pay for that, and Pathfinder doesn't. It's been a pretty sweet world, IMO.


If you're only looking at what's available for free then you're missing out on the best Paizo have to offer, in my view. As I see it, the flavor material they produce is streets ahead of anyone else (in terms of production values, consistency, thoughtfulness and creativity).

Clearly not everyone is going to like their stuff but "everything is free online" suggests to me that you're excluding what makes Paizo shipping notifications such an exciting event.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The irony, missed both here and on other forums, is that without WotC, and in particular their OGL, there would be NO Pathfinder, period.

Whether you love them or hate them, and indirectly as it may have been, Wizards gave many of the folks here at Paizo their start, and let them develop the skills they'd need to eventually create Pathfinder.

And, of course, without Wizards releasing the OGL then even if these people tried to form a company like Paizo, there'd be far less demand for an all-new d12 based fantasy system (or whatever) than there is for their OGL-compatible Pathfinder game that also happens to have picked up the 3/3.5e crowd that didn't move on to D&D 4e.

But, at it's core, Pathfinder only exists because of Wizards, and the decisions they made (again, consciously and accidentally). Had there been no OGL, had Wizards not allowed everyone to play in their sandbox, then Pathfinder would not be here as strong as it is today--in fact, it might not be here at all.

So, while I do love and support Paizo/Pathfinder, and I'm not "going away" from it any time soon, I started roleplaying with D&D and while I'm neither a rabid fan nor a zealous hater, I am a gamer, and as such I'm looking forward to seeing how 5e develops.

I've played D&D since forever, I play both Pathfinder and 4e now, and each edition has changed the game. Some changes I liked, some I didn't, but so it goes. Since I'm not the one creating the perfect game just for me, I'll deal with what's offered and go from there.

Hasbro is a company, a corporate entity that bought out a failing TSR and owns the rights to all of the IP that was D&D. For good or ill, it's theirs, and they bought it to make a profit, and a game, and they made both 3/3.5 and 4e, and soon 5e. Whether any of it ever meets the $50M or $100M mark that Hasbro expects remains to be seen, but have no doubt that just like any company, they bought the rights expecting to make a profit or else they wouldn't have bothered in the first place.

Call their efforts money-grabs if you will, or coldly calculated business practices or whatever, but had TSR been a better corporate entity then they'd still be around, in business, and even they would most likely be putting out new editions of D&D--as they did in the past or we would still be discussing only the original boxed set.

So, given that the game has always been evolving, I'm interested in seeing what Cook and Cordell can do with it, and what 5e will look like--it is, officially, the "future" of D&D whether we like it or not.

And, until it's out and we're playtesting it, we won't even know if we like it...


Steve Geddes wrote:

If you're only looking at what's available for free then you're missing out on the best Paizo have to offer, in my view. As I see it, the flavor material they produce is streets ahead of anyone else (in terms of production values, consistency, thoughtfulness and creativity).

Clearly not everyone is going to like their stuff but "everything is free online" suggests to me that you're excluding what makes Paizo shipping notifications such an exciting event.

Flavor material I can easily do myself that's more to my liking or suit. I do like Golarion's setting and my friend has purchased a few Adventure Paths, but even what you say just doesn't entice me enough to spend my money on their products. I like the fact that a good portion and 3PP portions are OGL and I make frequent stops on their SRD.....still, not enough reason to lay down the dough when I can do it for a system I just like better (meaning 4E).

Liberty's Edge

Diffan wrote:
mousey wrote:


Many many more..read it. Doesn't mean it isn't fun. Doesn't mean it isn't balanced. Doesn't mean that there aren't people who like it. But it is not D&D.

Well it is, because it has the name and everything. The problem is many people think D&D is about the rules, the sacred cows, the number of classes in the PHB or the Races or auto-hit Magic Missile or some perverse notion that wizards need to be able to bend time and space and Fighters should sit in their castle and retire after 11th level or blah-blah-blah. It's not, it's about roleplaying a character with your friends. It's about rolling dice and imagining your fighting a huge dragon. It's about falling down a spike pit trap because you failed your Perception check even though the corridor looked fine. THAT's what D&D is. It transcends rules. It transcends editions. 4E did everything other editons of D&D were capable of doing. People just didn't like the way it was done. Just because I despite the very existance of AD&D/2E and think it's a pile of garbage mechanics doesn't mean I don't think it's D&D, because it is.

It didn't sell for a multitude of reasons, which I feel a fraction of it was due to it's rules. I wish they had put more thought into the Marketing aspect, understanding that many people are WAAAY too passionate about this than they were and could not accept critical options of the, then, current system. Fuel that fire with the sweeping changes to the Forgotten Realms and it's not looking pretty right from the get-go.

But what's done is done. They're a company that makes stuff I like and there's nothing really to say after that. They'll either produce things that I like or they won't. Heck, I doubt I've given Pathfinder more than a few bucks because everything is free online, so why would I? Pathfinder practically fueled my desire to give WotC money because I HAD to pay for that, and Pathfinder doesn't. It's been a pretty sweet world, IMO.

Diffan, again you're not facing facts. Did you read the articles that started this post? If 4E is d&d, it will not spark a 5E so soon and the direction it may take (again read the articles or those in nytimes or in wizard site itself. Don't confine yourself). Admit it. Moreover, what you said isn't d&d. It's role playing adventure. Don't confine your perception of role playing just around d&d. Widen your perception and try other systems. But what makes d&d, well d&d is its uniqueness in its flavor. All previous editions managed to retain it but not 4E. If you can't see it, well and good but hasbro sees it. The new designers see it. Hence the change.

What Steve said is also true. There are a lot of materials in paizo that is good and definitely not free. Try it. Widen your perspective.

Liberty's Edge

ValmarTheMad wrote:

The irony, missed both here and on other forums, is that without WotC, and in particular their OGL, there would be NO Pathfinder, period.

Whether you love them or hate them, and indirectly as it may have been, Wizards gave many of the folks here at Paizo their start, and let them develop the skills they'd need to eventually create Pathfinder.

And, of course, without Wizards releasing the OGL then even if these people tried to form a company like Paizo, there'd be far less demand for an all-new d12 based fantasy system (or whatever) than there is for their OGL-compatible Pathfinder game that also happens to have picked up the 3/3.5e crowd that didn't move on to D&D 4e.

But, at it's core, Pathfinder only exists because of Wizards, and the decisions they made (again, consciously and accidentally). Had there been no OGL, had Wizards not allowed everyone to play in their sandbox, then Pathfinder would not be here as strong as it is today--in fact, it might not be here at all.

So, while I do love and support Paizo/Pathfinder, and I'm not "going away" from it any time soon, I started roleplaying with D&D and while I'm neither a rabid fan nor a zealous hater, I am a gamer, and as such I'm looking forward to seeing how 5e develops.

I've played D&D since forever, I play both Pathfinder and 4e now, and each edition has changed the game. Some changes I liked, some I didn't, but so it goes. Since I'm not the one creating the perfect game just for me, I'll deal with what's offered and go from there.

Hasbro is a company, a corporate entity that bought out a failing TSR and owns the rights to all of the IP that was D&D. For good or ill, it's theirs, and they bought it to make a profit, and a game, and they made both 3/3.5 and 4e, and soon 5e. Whether any of it ever meets the $50M or $100M mark that Hasbro expects remains to be seen, but have no doubt that just like any company, they bought the rights expecting to make a profit or else they wouldn't have bothered in the first place.

Call their...

Vslmar, majority here are not missing the point.. So what if hasbro/wotc gave the OGL in the first place? That OGL is for 3.5. Paizo used it as base to create pathfinder. So? We're not bashing hasbro here but that they are doing a 5E. Why and where it will go. There are people here who are claiming they are pandering to the needs of us old schools who don't like 4E. Ok. We are the ones who left buying 4E that cost them the market shares. Ok. But just cos they gave the OGL we need to remain loyal? C'mon.

Agree that hasbro Wants a profit. They know 4E missed the mark and announced 5E this soon. What does that imply?


Diffan wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

If you're only looking at what's available for free then you're missing out on the best Paizo have to offer, in my view. As I see it, the flavor material they produce is streets ahead of anyone else (in terms of production values, consistency, thoughtfulness and creativity).

Clearly not everyone is going to like their stuff but "everything is free online" suggests to me that you're excluding what makes Paizo shipping notifications such an exciting event.

Flavor material I can easily do myself that's more to my liking or suit. I do like Golarion's setting and my friend has purchased a few Adventure Paths, but even what you say just doesn't entice me enough to spend my money on their products. I like the fact that a good portion and 3PP portions are OGL and I make frequent stops on their SRD.....still, not enough reason to lay down the dough when I can do it for a system I just like better (meaning 4E).

I wasn't really trying to give you a reason to buy it (though I think you should, it's almost universally terrific, in my opinion, irrespective of whether it's directly used).

My post was a response to your passing comment that "everything is available for free online" as I think it reveals a common error in comparisons between the two companies. From my perspective, WoTC produce rules with a bit of flavor material and Paizo produce flavor material with a bit of rules. This distinction, in fact, is why I'm so happy dungeon/dragon was moved to online and the 4E/PF split happened: I get what I consider to be an excellent set of rules and an equally excellent source of flavor material - each produced by a company which has specialized in what they do best.

It doesn't surprise me that WoTC fans who choose to bag Paizo often target the ruleset nor that Paizo fans who criticize WoTC often target the adventures. I think it at least partially stems from measuring each company's success using the other as a benchmark.

(it's obvious, but I'm going to explicitly note the qualifications in that last paragraph. I don't mean that ALL criticism stems from this, merely that it's a factor)

Liberty's Edge

Steve, i agree with you and i am a subscriber to almost all products of pathfinder...until i can't buy any more hardcopies of the materials. The place i stay with my wife isn't that big and i need to share my allocated space with d&d minis, warhammer fantasy minis, 40k minis, 1E, 2E, 3.5 d&d stuff and many more. Now i buy only the electronic versions. The fluffs and extra rules are good although certain elements are still not to my expectation (eg some pathfinder tales books)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
mousey wrote:
Did you read the articles that started this post? If 4E is d&d, it will not spark a 5E so soon and the direction it may take (again read the articles or those in nytimes or in wizard site itself. Don't confine yourself). Admit it. Moreover, what you said isn't d&d. It's role playing adventure. Don't confine your perception of role playing just around d&d.

As a counterpoint I feel D&D4e is D&D, although I admit to only really knowing D&D3.5 prior to that. It had everything that D&D should have in my mind, the iconic monsters, the staple classes Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue/Thief, it had races, skills, feats, AC, Fortitude, Will, Reflex - all the stuff I was familiar with from 3.5 and what I felt was D&D.

However, for me the 4e rules weren't quite to my tastes, and I still prefer 3.5. But that doesn't stop me feeling 4e isn't D&D. Just like although I play Deadlands using Savage Worlds, if I played Deadlands using the original system I wouldn't think it wasn't Deadlands, ditto for the differences between Shadowrun 1e, 2e, 3e vs 4e - they're all Shadowrun even if 4e did change a lot of staple rules that were in all teh previous editions.

So for me rather than 4e sparking a 5e so soon because it wasn't D&D, I rather think of it as 4e sparked a 5e so soon because the rules implementation of D&D wasn't what was desired by enough people.


mousey wrote:
But it is not D&D.

Well now, would you like to test that?

Presumably no-one is likely to contend that 1st edition AD&D isn't D&D. Take a module written for that, with pre-generated characters, and play through it recording what you did, what dice rolls were made, and what the results were.

Then play the module again, using 2e AD&D or B/E D&D, performing the same actions and using the same dice rolls. Are the results the same or very similar? Then you probably have a game that's very much like D&D in play.

Now repeat for 3e and/or 4e. Some of the die rolls will need conversion from d100 to d20 (divide by 5, round all fractions up) and some will change from roll low to roll high. Characters will need some conversion. When you perform the same actions, and resolve them with the appropriately converted die rolls, are the results the same or very similar? If they aren't, then you have a game that doesn't play very much like D&D. That may have the name, but is not D&D.

I am prepared to make a small wager, btw. 3e, after about 3rd level, will deviate far more from the results obtained in 1e than 4e does.


4e IS D&D just for the fact that it is the Fourth Edition of the game called Dungeons and Dragons. What "D&D" is to a lot of people is subjective, but for every person who claims "4e is not D&D", there are just as many people saying it is. Whatever your vision of D&D is, the previous version would disagree with you, all the way back to BCMI.

It may not be your vision of D&D, but it is D&D. Says so right on the cover.

This coming from a 3e grognard. Seriously, get off your soapboxes, the war is over. Whatever the current version of D&D is, THAT is D&D. It doesn't matter if someone doesn't like it, it's what made it through development, testing, marketing, and got the name stamped on the front.

This is just silly at this point.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Lets be honest with ourselves, the future of dnd is Pathfinder.

Why?

Let me explain my theory...

When the rules set was Open, this fractured the gaming community across various versions of the core rules.

Now, when Wizards brough out fourth ed, we had a new unfamiliar systme and then we had Adventure Paths.

Those with vast amounts of money tied up in vast quantities of books tended to drift away from 4th ed and gravitated to what became Pathfinder.

Pathfinder has remained true to the spirit of DnD and more and more of us over time have drifted away from 4th ed.

I watch 4th ed games now, a series of battlemat encounters with little role play during or between them. The fun is on the battle mat and not in the roleplay. Pathfinder, its role play as we have always loved.

Now a 5th edition is muted.

I look at my shelves and I see campaign books in 3 editions, each book having like 20% updated rules and 80% rehashed campaign setting details, maps, etc.

So I ask myself

Do I want to buy all the core book yet again this decade? Do I need to pay fro 20% of a book thats new rules and the rest being stuff I already own?

No, I dont.

I will vote with my disposable income to the company that has looked after my role play needs better than Wizards. That is Paizo and Pathfinder.

I could argue new version means new fun, exciting rules, but to be honest, what it really means is that for each group I DM/Play in, we are all sent back to the start, learning the rules all over again, bogging our game down in questions and page flipping.

Pathfinder doesnt need that, we know it, we play it fast and well.

We dont need the world changing again.

And thats why Paizo will see sales increases after 5e, because we trust them, and Wizards, they can keep changing their game but the trust has gone.

Thats why 5e for me will be the straw that moves me to Pathfinder only.

Thats me though, I wont say everyone will do it, I wont say they will fail, but I also wont say that I'm likely to be the only one taking this decision.

Thats my thoughts at the moment. It will take a pretty major miracle right now to convince me otherwise.

Shadow Lodge

To many fans of 0e, 1e wasn't D&D.
To many fans of 0e or 1e, 2e wasn't D&D.
To many fans of 0e, 1e or 2e; 3.X wasn't D&D.
To many fans of 0e, 1e, 2e or 3.X; 4e wasn't D&D.
Many fans of 3.X or 4e wouldn't consider 0e, 1e, or 2e to be D&D.

And that's ignoring the Basic Set, B/X D&D, BECMI, and the Rules Cyclopedia.


mousey wrote:


Diffan, again you're not facing facts. Did you read the articles that started this post? If 4E is d&d, it will not spark a 5E so soon and the direction it may take (again read the articles or those in nytimes or in wizard site itself. Don't confine yourself). Admit it. Moreover, what you said isn't d&d. It's role playing adventure. Don't confine your perception of role playing just around d&d. Widen your perception and try other systems. But what makes d&d, well d&d is its uniqueness in its flavor. All previous editions managed to retain it but not 4E. If you can't see it, well and good but hasbro sees it. The new designers see it. Hence the change.

What Steve said is also true. There are a lot of materials in paizo that is good and definitely not free. Try it. Widen your perspective.

Sorry but there is no right or wrong answer here as the question "What is D&D?" varies from just about everyone. There isn't a definite terms, though your suggesion makes it sound like there is a time frame that sorta "marks" the franchise for some reason. I wouldn't call Pathfinder "D&D" because....well it doesn't use the name for one. It doesn't have Beholders or Mindflayers for another. But I'm sure people would say it IS D&D (or another form thereof). But really, who cares at this point? I still love 4E and all the sweeping ideas they made for that system and the freedom it's given me as a player AND DM (yay, no more always LG Paladins!!)

As for Pathfinder's material, I'll start buying it when they start releasing stuff more to my liking such as a version of the Tome of Battle, which is a supplement I won't play without when running 3E/v3.5. I just have an immense library of 3.5 supplements at my disposal that I can just as easily find infomation, rules, and flavor therein without purchasing "Paizo's Version".

Liberty's Edge

It's really hard to say for me at least if I will buy 5E without the finished product. I no longer go buy word of mouth or customer reviews. Way too opinated and sometimes not even true. Don't beleive look up any reviews on games such as Bioshock 2 or any other game that requires an internet connection. A multitude of one star reviews . Many of them "I gave this game one star because it requires an interent connection" and nothing else. It can be the greatest product in the world yet that matters not because it requires an internet connection.

If they can pull off the modular aspect of D&D that wiould allow all editions of D&D to be supported then 5E would be the future. I like Pathfinder yet if I would have to choose between a D&D rpg that allows all editions play vs one that allows only one edtion type of play I'm going to chose the one that gives me more options. Not to mention Wotc tends to release editions that supports all levels of play. PF the epic level sorucebook is years away.

As I said I like PF yet I don't see it as the future of D&D. Too much 3.5 baggage imo.

As for what is D&D so far in my experience no one makes a difference between D&D and PF. At least in my neck of the woods. PF is too similar to 3.5. Not even truly a new edition so why would I refer to it as anything but an expansion to D&D.


Anthony Adam wrote:

Lets be honest with ourselves, the future of dnd is Pathfinder.

Why?

Let me explain my theory...

When the rules set was Open, this fractured the gaming community across various versions of the core rules.

Now, when Wizards brough out fourth ed, we had a new unfamiliar systme and then we had Adventure Paths.

Those with vast amounts of money tied up in vast quantities of books tended to drift away from 4th ed and gravitated to what became Pathfinder.

Not everyone, apparently, because I didn't drift to Pathfinder and was only playing the system at the time due to my friend and their free Revisons of v3.5.

Anthony Adam wrote:


Pathfinder has remained true to the spirit of DnD and more and more of us over time have drifted away from 4th ed.

I watch 4th ed games now, a series of battlemat encounters with little role play during or between them. The fun is on the battle mat and not in the roleplay. Pathfinder, its role play as we have always loved.

What a sad group, unless that's what they're into. Or you could have been watching an "Encounters" sessions, a game specifically designed for that sort of play. I think my gaming frineds would find this example laughable, yet sad. Again, YMMV but most people who've played 4E and didn't like it do the the "all battle, no RP" most likely had an inexperienced DM with that system or a DM unaccustomed to actual roleplaying at the table where the ruls don't guide your hand at every turn or make you "roll-play" with the variety of Skills that functionally do the same thing. It's cool though, because sometimes a certain game isn't someone's cup of tea.

Anthony Adam wrote:


Now a 5th edition is muted.

I look at my shelves and I see campaign books in 3 editions, each book having like 20% updated rules and 80% rehashed campaign setting details, maps, etc.

So I ask myself

Do I want to buy all the core book yet again this decade? Do I need to pay fro 20% of a book thats new rules and the rest being stuff I already own?

No, I dont.

I will vote with my disposable income to the company that has looked after my role play needs better than Wizards. That is Paizo and Pathfinder.

I could argue new version means new fun, exciting rules, but to be honest, what it really means is that for each group I DM/Play in, we are all sent back to the start, learning the rules all over again, bogging our game down in questions and page flipping.

Pathfinder doesnt need that, we know it, we play it fast and well.

We dont need the world changing again.

And thats why Paizo will see sales increases after 5e, because we trust them, and Wizards, they can keep changing their game but the trust has gone.

Thats why 5e for me will be the straw that moves me to Pathfinder only.

Thats me though, I wont say everyone will do it, I wont say they will fail, but I also wont say that I'm likely to be the only one taking this decision.

Thats my thoughts at the moment. It will take a pretty major miracle right now to convince me otherwise.

I have decided to wait a full year after 5E's initial release, for a multitude of reasons, but most of all is because I want to see how they fair in a year. If it looks promising, I'll give it a really good shot and see what it has to offer. But I'm perfectly fine playing with the books I have now with the systems that are out now. If I want that "old school" feeling I'll play PF/v3.5. If I want "gritty", I'll do E6 or PF-E8, and if I want to play D&D, I'll do 4E. I don't think 5E is anywhere close to production (meaning a full-release) until sometimes next year, so I have a lot of time to decide if it's goingto be right with me. I just don't see what 5E can really offer me that I can't get from my 3.5 collection, updated with PF SRD or with 4E that I've put money into. If they say they're going to keep DDI usable for 4E Character Builder/Monster Builder then awesome, I can keep giving them my money for usable tools. If not, then I cancel the subscription and hold out for a while. I do, however, find the whole idea of Brand Loyalty completely ridiculous and won't hold out because they're WotC or whatever.

Liberty's Edge

Bluenose wrote:
mousey wrote:
But it is not D&D.

Well now, would you like to test that?

Presumably no-one is likely to contend that 1st edition AD&D isn't D&D. Take a module written for that, with pre-generated characters, and play through it recording what you did, what dice rolls were made, and what the results were.

Then play the module again, using 2e AD&D or B/E D&D, performing the same actions and using the same dice rolls. Are the results the same or very similar? Then you probably have a game that's very much like D&D in play.

Now repeat for 3e and/or 4e. Some of the die rolls will need conversion from d100 to d20 (divide by 5, round all fractions up) and some will change from roll low to roll high. Characters will need some conversion. When you perform the same actions, and resolve them with the appropriately converted die rolls, are the results the same or very similar? If they aren't, then you have a game that doesn't play very much like D&D. That may have the name, but is not D&D.

I am prepared to make a small wager, btw. 3e, after about 3rd level, will deviate far more from the results obtained in 1e than 4e does.

Bluenose, have you the articles that started this thread? If not, pls read it first. Remember you're posting in this thread n the context of it.

Btw, what you wrote as an example...well n good. Let's go with your train of thought. 4E: The warrior hits an opponent n hits, damage n healing surge. Move back opponent 2 squares. 1E? 2E? 3E? How does it work?

Going back to the articles, and of course the context of this thread, they are talking about d&d as the feel. Articles said it was lost in 4E. Agreed by giants in the rpg realm n also lead designer of past (of 4E) n present (soon to be 5E) and also many of the original d&d loyalists. Read the article in nytimes. Read the articles in wizards.

Once again, no one says 4E is a bad game. I also agree that the definition of "flop" differs. But it is not d&d. For goodness sake, before u disagree again, read the articles. I said it, many said it, wizards designers admitted to it. Period.

And these aren't flaming posts. Its to understand why 5E is needed (and it is a fact hasbro is admitting it too) n how it will be. Hence the future of d&d as the title of this thread.

Liberty's Edge

Diffan wrote:
mousey wrote:


Diffan, again you're not facing facts. Did you read the articles that started this post? If 4E is d&d, it will not spark a 5E so soon and the direction it may take (again read the articles or those in nytimes or in wizard site itself. Don't confine yourself). Admit it. Moreover, what you said isn't d&d. It's role playing adventure. Don't confine your perception of role playing just around d&d. Widen your perception and try other systems. But what makes d&d, well d&d is its uniqueness in its flavor. All previous editions managed to retain it but not 4E. If you can't see it, well and good but hasbro sees it. The new designers see it. Hence the change.

What Steve said is also true. There are a lot of materials in paizo that is good and definitely not free. Try it. Widen your perspective.

Sorry but there is no right or wrong answer here as the question "What is D&D?" varies from just about everyone. There isn't a definite terms, though your suggesion makes it sound like there is a time frame that sorta "marks" the franchise for some reason. I wouldn't call Pathfinder "D&D" because....well it doesn't use the name for one. It doesn't have Beholders or Mindflayers for another. But I'm sure people would say it IS D&D (or another form thereof). But really, who cares at this point? I still love 4E and all the sweeping ideas they made for that system and the freedom it's given me as a player AND DM (yay, no more always LG Paladins!!)

As for Pathfinder's material, I'll start buying it when they start releasing stuff more to my liking such as a version of the Tome of Battle, which is a supplement I won't play without when running 3E/v3.5. I just have an immense library of 3.5 supplements at my disposal that I can just as easily find infomation, rules, and flavor therein without purchasing "Paizo's Version".

Fair enough diffan. Once again, no one (at least not me) is saying 4E is a "bad" game. Even the articles didn't mention it except it states the hows it was conceived (as modern gaming like computer, mmo, breaking away from original mould, etc). Agree too that there is no right or wrong to the feel but definitely, majority felt that 4E isn't. Hasbro felt it too (after it hurts their wallets) n wishes to change it. 2008 to 2011. It didn't suddenly dawn on them. It must be hurting them for at least a year or two or more. But like i mentioned, this thread is started by those articles. These are facts (unless the articles are fabricated but it is mentioned in wizards too) which points to the reasons why they are replacing 4E with something else. You can stay with 4E, go with pf or start your journey in 5E. Doesn't matter. Your choice.


mousey wrote:


Fair enough diffan. Once again, no one (at least not me) is saying 4E is a "bad" game. Even the articles didn't mention it except it states the hows it was conceived (as modern gaming like computer, mmo, breaking away from original mould, etc). Agree too that there is no right or wrong to the feel but definitely, majority felt that 4E isn't. Hasbro felt it too (after it hurts their wallets) n wishes to change it. 2008 to 2011. It didn't suddenly dawn on them. It must be hurting them for at least a year or two or more. But like i mentioned, this thread is started by those articles. These are facts (unless the articles are fabricated but it is mentioned in wizards too) which points to the reasons why they are replacing 4E with something else. You can stay with 4E, go with pf or start your journey in 5E. Doesn't matter. Your choice.

I really don't give a rats behind about majority rule or opinions (what we're discussing here). Hasbro, I'm assuming doesn't care about what the Brand "feels" like so long as they're seeing profits. They didn't see profits, so they're changing direction. I could go off on how I think they aimed too high or though the brand could produce more than what it actually could, but i digress. I didn't know D&D is based off of years in the running per edition. I don't see 5E getting published and printed and sold until mid 2013, which puts the window of 4E at about 5 years. 3 Years shy of 3.5 with a hell of a lot more competition than there was at a time of economic instability and unemployment. I don't think that's a bad run. I also don't I think it's a good indicator of what D&D is.

mousey wrote:


Once again, no one says 4E is a bad game. I also agree that the definition of "flop" differs. But it is not d&d. For goodness sake, before u disagree again, read the articles. I said it, many said it, wizards designers admitted to it. Period.

And these aren't flaming posts. Its to understand why 5E is needed (and it is a fact hasbro is admitting it too) n how it will be. Hence the future of d&d as the title of this thread.

And really, what your reading are people's Opinions about 4E and the current state of WotC/D&D. THEY might not feel it's D&D or somehow lost something that makes it D&D, but that's their opinion much like it's yours. I don't hold the same view. I see all of the iterations of D&D AS D&D. I don't pick or choose. Also, what I find funny is that your "proof" is based on what was said in the article, as you pointed out THEY don't think it's D&D, so obviously it's not. This is, as you state a fact. Then when I mention that THOSE SAME PEOPLE are claiming they'll keep DDI running for 4E fans, you claim it's just a ploy to keep me from leaving, thus calling them liars. So which is it? Or are you just taking parts of the article you feel should be facts and ones you don't agree with lies?

Liberty's Edge

These "they" happen to be the designers of your 4E. Obviously, u didn't read those articles. If i am the maker of a model of car, who has more right to say it is a bad car? I think obviously u are not seeing the picture here. Moreover, i had played 4E and was a ddi subscriber. I ran 4E campaigns n games. Finally i call it quits. i threw away all my materials. Its not hearsay. Your presumption shows how your train of thought Is formed..sad. I, like many, gave our views long ago. Now the designers of 4E themselves proved those to be correct.

I think u need to consider examining your logic. Are u saying a liar cannot ever possibly tell a truth? Then based on your "logical" analysis, either you haven't told a lie before or else everything u said or will say is a lie. Good grief.

PS: why are u posting in a paizo forum? It seems your opinion of paizo's pathfinder isn't that positive. Anyway, your choice n freedom.


mousey wrote:

These "they" happen to be the designers of your 4E. Obviously, u didn't read those articles. If i am the maker of a model of car, who has more right to say it is a bad car? I think obviously u are not seeing the picture here. Moreover, i had played 4E and was a ddi subscriber. I ran 4E campaigns n games. Finally i call it quits. i threw away all my materials. Its not hearsay. Your presumption shows how your train of thought Is formed..sad. I, like many, gave our views long ago. Now the designers of 4E themselves proved those to be correct.

I think u need to consider examining your logic. Are u saying a liar cannot ever possibly tell a truth? Then based on your "logical" analysis, either you haven't told a lie before or else everything u said or will say is a lie. Good grief.

Yea, I read the article. Twice. All 3 parts. And I still don't agree with them. This is what I initially had to say about their comments and Mike Mearls specifically. But going along with your idea of say...cars, lets look at the Chevy Volt. It was rated one of 2011 most disappointing cars or a failure by GM. Does this mean it's not a Chevy? Sure, the standards of many americans would say that it's below Chevy's standard for a car and the reviews are largely varied but it's still a Chevy, no mistaking that symbol on the grill. Even the GM people said it wasn't very good or made them much money, but I don't see them saying "This vehicle isn't a Chevy, no not at all."

I agree that 4E didn't sell well. I agree that 4E is for specific gamers that enjoy that style of play. I agree that it's system is radcally different than 3E and editions before it. But I don't agree, nor ever will, that it not Dungeons and Dragons. People may not like that and people will put any sort of nostaligic "feel" for what a game means to them, but they can't wipe away the Dungeons and Dragons logo on the front cover of ALL the 4E books. Because it's Dungeons and Dragons. Period. That, my friend, is a Fact.

mousey wrote:


PS: why are u posting in a paizo forum? It seems your opinion of paizo's pathfinder isn't that positive. Anyway, your choice n freedom.

Actually, I have a lot of respect for Pathfinder. I think their improvements on 3.5 were generally positive. I think their APs are vastly superior to anything WotC can produce and I enjoy the setting of Golarion. I don't purchase much of their material because of my large v3.5 supplements and the free SRD. Besides, up until Monday this was the "4E Sub-Forums". So why are you here if your not a fan of 4E?


Diffan wrote:
People may not like that and people will put any sort of nostaligic "feel" for what a game means to them, but they can't wipe away the Dungeons and Dragons logo on the front cover of ALL the 4E books. Because it's Dungeons and Dragons.

I think whenever you read the words "it isn't D&D", you should remember that that is a subjective statement that means "it doesn't feel like D&D to me".

To a lot of people, that logo doesn't really mean anything more than "these people have a right to put the name on their product, but we as gamers decide what feels right for us".

You're trying to fight subjectivity with objectivity. You can't help but be frustrated.


What's the name for feigning ignorance for the intent of a statement to create the illusion that the intent is so stupid that nobody in his right mind would get the idea to imply it? Because that's what a hunge number of people is doing these days.

Liberty's Edge

It is still 4E sub-forum in a paizo WEBSITE showing as a hot topic (see that i didn't jump on it immediately) as the FUTURE OF D&D :)

Anyway, your earlier post in response to Anthony doesn't seem to echo your respect for PF but to each its own.

Going by your chevy volt example, of course it is still a chevy, in name (just like 4E is still called d&d 4E right?) carrying the logo? Yes but its a failure. Why? Engine performance? Fuel efficiency? Space? Price? Handling? You tell me. Chevy said it. U buy it?

Going by your logic, why wotc is giving up on d&d 4E. they said it lost the feel (of d&d and they meant the old versions which was there till 3.5). You tell me. Wotc said it. U buy it?

I am not saying 4E sucks. I owned it. I played it. It's well balance, action packed, easy to take up ( by the way, i still own all the d&d 4e boardgames n enjoy playing it; so maybe 4E is good on a boardgame n its ranked quite highly in boardgamegeek) n with loads of new themes n fluffs but it lost the feel. Its d&d - well its called that with its logo but it doesn't feel like the previous editions. The people wotc is trying to woo thinks so n now they think (or at least admitting now) so too.

So tell me, isn't that the case? Even though u don't think so. Good. But this is the future of d&d (pun intended on the thread title). Enough said. I got a PF game to prepare for this weekend. Peace.

Edit: on the boardgames portion :)


Yora wrote:
What's the name for feigning ignorance for the intent of a statement to create the illusion that the intent is so stupid that nobody in his right mind would get the idea to imply it? Because that's what a hunge number of people is doing these days.

When people are being obtuse, you just have to patiently explain why you aren't buying their obtuseness and move on.

Liberty's Edge

Is that a name for an angle? :)


Obtuse eh? And here I though people like splitting hairs. I understand what they mean when people say "Its not like D&D", meaning to them it doesn't. Which I'm perfectly fine with. That's not the issue here. The issue is passing this opinion off as fact, yes even if One of the designers thinks this way or if the company think so too. To me and a lot of other fans, 4E IS D&D and that's not going to change.

mousey wrote:


Anyway, your earlier post in response to Anthony doesn't seem to echo your respect for PF but to each its own.

Re-reading what I posted on the first page showed me that I never mentioned Paizo or Pathinder once, nor even talked about other editons of the game. What I had a problem with is Mike's perceived "problems" with the game like.....ya know.....the same criticism WotC gave previous editons when 4E came out. So of course I'm going to rail against that because these weren't even valid criticism of the RULES, but the way people played USING those rules. I didn't hear "Wow, Grappling rules in 4E were really bad." or "Gee, by the time the party hits 11th level, spellcasters really steal the show." which are mechanics. Instead we get "It's all about player power now - the DM is just the rules guy - and the DM can't contradict what the players say." Really? ........really Mike? It's hard for me to comprehend this statement because I've only seen it happen in the Worst case scenarios and it's not indicative of the Rules themselve. Far from it. This same statement could be applied to any number of edition or games IF the DM allows it to happen. That's my point, people don't like the entire notion of 4E (the company that creates it, the way it was marketed, it's lack luster debut, short-sighted playtesting, and certain aspects of the rules). Not 4E rules in and of themselves being the driving factor of the division.

mousey wrote:


Going by your chevy volt example, of course it is still a chevy, in name (just like 4E is still called d&d 4E right?) carrying the logo? Yes but its a failure. Why? Engine performance? Fuel efficiency? Space? Price? Handling? You tell me. Chevy said it. U buy it?

Going by your logic, why wotc is giving up on d&d 4E. they said it lost the feel (of d&d and they meant the old versions which was there till 3.5). You tell me. Wotc said it. U buy it?

I wouldn't buy it because I'm a Ford guy (i know, there's that brand loyalty I was championing against!). But I'm joking, it's not the brand or people's reviews or the price or what the company says......it's the fact that it's electric driven. I'm not a fan and don't find that part about it worth the trouble. But that doesn't make it any less of a Chevy or whatever.

As for WotC, yea I bought it because to me, it does feel more like D&D than 3.5 did. Just as I'm sure there are people who love their Volt. When I think of D&D, 4E springs to mind. 4E performed a lot of tasks I felt the system needed work on. As a DM, I don't have to worry about one PC ending the encounter with one spell or the cleirc performing 3 different jobs (and better than classes specifically taylored to that job) or a slew of other things that I felt the game really lacked (after 8 years of playing, no less). To me, 4E was a breath of fresh air. I didn't have to spend 2 hours re-writing a class-based monster, I didn't have to worry about the balance of encounters all the time, and I didn't have to worry about how distributing magical items could have sever impact on my game.

As a player, nothing is more boring than doing the same thing over and over again. Even with feats, the fighter worked the same thing every turn. I didn't find that this was getting to be fun. Not until the Tome of Battle anyways. At least that tome allowed me to do more than Move/Attack. Attack twice with uninsipring critical (if I confirmed *rollseyes*). IT's just not a system I see myself playing all the time anymore. I find more fun in doing an E6 style game, at least there Fighters can still matter, Trolls are scarey regardless of power, and Dragons are truly feared.


Anthony Adam wrote:

Pathfinder has remained true to the spirit of DnD and more and more of us over time have drifted away from 4th ed.

I watch 4th ed games now, a series of battlemat encounters with little role play during or between them. The fun is on the battle mat and not in the roleplay. Pathfinder, its role play as we have always loved.

Ah.

The trifecta.

"4e is about combat, Pathfinder is about roleplaying, and it's not roleplaying unless I say it is!"

Next.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Anthony Adam wrote:
I watch 4th ed games now, a series of battlemat encounters with little role play during or between them. The fun is on the battle mat and not in the roleplay. Pathfinder, its role play as we have always loved.

That's funny. I've seen a lot of 3rd edition games that looked exactly the same.

I will admit that Wizards did a bad job of presenting quality example adventures, particularly in the first year or so of 4E. Probably because it took a while for the freelancers to really become familiar with the new system. But there are plenty of roleplay opportunities in the Open Design modules I use.

You get the roleplaying that you put into a game. Every edition of the game can be played as a series of combat encounters. That's not a new problem.


deinol wrote:
You get the roleplaying that you put into a game. Every edition of the game can be played as a series of combat encounters. That's not a new problem.

I agree....though 'd say that's not a problem at all -- if that's what you enjoy, have at it. In any case, "There is no roleplaying in 4E" is tripe.

151 to 200 of 258 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 'Future of D&D' article All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.