The OP merely asks what one thinks of WOTC's stated intentions.
Personally I think they are trying to regain the folk lost over the years, even before 4e, and to address the failures of that edition.(Come on kids, if it aint broke, don't fix it. So why are they "fixing it"?)
I have played since 1981. 1e/BECMI/2e/3&3.5/4e and now PF. I like bits of all of them. My gripe with WOTC was the everchanging nature of what was offered/promised by DDI ( virtual gaming table, character visualiser). Rules changes and errata often. To me it felt rushed and badly organised, and slightly underhanded. I'm cautious, the stated intentions are there, but so is past experience.
A modular approach? Sounds interesting, but how will they avoid lots of merchandise to satisfy every need? Luckily they wont. Good idea WOTC.
I think he's saying that the Pathfinder sales that put 4E into second place represents a 50%+ market share.Where was a 40-50% drop ins WoTC D&D sales reported?
It assumes a number of things that are either not true or may not be true, though.
First, that 4e is really in second place.
Second, that the hobby market did not experience negative growth during the course of 4e's lifespan.
Third, that people who bought Pathfinder did not also buy 4e.
And probably some other factors that I've forgotten or am not equipped to understand.
Jeesh, 50 plus posts since I last looked in. Okay, yes I was referring to the widely known recent sales estimates linked on these boards somewhere - I'm sure anyone who's interested can find them with a quick search - based around gamestore owner's knowledge, which showed PF roughly up there neck and neck with 4e.
Now prior to the last year or two PF would have been nowhere compared to 4e, and as I recall 4vengers used to actively mock anyone who even suggested that would ever change. And to be fair to them, it did seem impossible and unlikely. Anecdotally however I began to notice signs this trend was changing, and changing fast a year or two back, people were posting all over the place that they'd played 4e for a year or so, but had played it out and wanted something a bit deeper and were switching to PF. Others were noting lots of 4e books turning up on the shelves of second hand book stores, but never any PF books, and so on. Only anecdotal but interesting, and seemingly backed by a) the regular (quarterly?) sales estimates from the stores, b) that new product for 4e seemed to slow to a dribble, c) people associated with creating 4e were being chopped at WOTC like it was Paris during the Red Terror over there, and d) in contrast Paizo clearly was booming.
We now see articles where Mr Mearls more or less confirms sales have been dissapointing, etc.
I seriously question whether anyone honestly doubts that PF took a large chunk of WOTC's former customers away from them over the course of the past 2-3 years. Yes, I'm sure many of us bought 4e books, before giving up on it. But that's beside the point.
As to whether there was a general dip in the rpg market across the board during this time ... well the only company I've seen saying this have been WOTC. Paizo seem to be doing just dandy for example, as do FFG (I like their 40k rpgs). Seems for a supposed general decline it's a bit localised to me.
But this is all moot, the announcement of 5e coming after only 3 years, with the last year seeing scant new product for 4e, says it all. This isn't the sign of a game that's done well.
The OP merely asks what one thinks of WOTC's stated intentions.
I'm a little unsure what to make of their intentions overall because i'm not really sure what their intentions actually ARE. There's a little more execuspeak than i can parse there.
What exactly is a modular design? you're going to be swapping rule sets in and out? If its what i think it is that is very very very bad. If it happens a lot it would make every table effectively a different game , and you'd have to keep a list of which way you're playing it.
If a modular design is where your class is picked out of a handful of abilities.. ick. There's just too much room for people to mess their characters up.
I don't want to see another "Oh, right, well we didn't get around to designing your class, it will be ready in a few weeks.
Every table is a different game. Acknowleding the fact is a smart move.
What exactly is a modular design?
Maybe it means it will be like Magic the Gathering!
You know, combat rules cards are common, base classes and races are common, general spells are common but always a chance you get rare collectable classes, races, monsters and magic items :P
All printed in teeny tiny print on a card in a 60 card starter pack.
Every table is a different game. Acknowledging the fact is a smart move.
This will just make them more different. Even if two tables play with rule 1 set to A, rule 2 set to D, rule 3 set to B, and rule 4 set to F1 they're still going to be different.
(Admittedly I seem to be the only person on the planet who didnt really find the pre-electronic Dungeon and Dragon magazines good value and who doesnt mind the current versions).
I was happy when I got my notice in the mail about the cancellation. I was severly disappointed that so much of both magazines was devoted to adventure paths in which I had no interest.
At the same time, I feel for those who were huge fans of the magazines. Luckily for them, and unlike most products that get cancelled, their magazine continued in a slightly different form. So they never really lost anything.
|
The loss of both Dragon and Dingeon magazine bothered me alot oat first yet truth be told I never really used any of the material from either magazine very often. Every now and then yet for the most part they just gathered dust on my bookshelf. Same thing with the rifters from Palladium books (equivalent product). Even with 4E I have not used much of their content either.
20-25$ monthly purchase to something I might never use just no longer bothers me as much. Would I like to see both magazines continue yes. In a PDF fromat. Easier to transport and store and I can still use or not use them as I want.
Yes. Of anchovi pizzas.
Do you often encounter rational hate?
Just a question...
:D
SACRILEGE!! I will take free anchovy pizzas to the offices of paizo and wizards alike, and raise an army against you! There are dozens of us Big; dozens!
I've kept quiet because I said my peace much (much) earlier, possibly in a different thread, but this does occur to me: This many threads talking about 5E again and again on the Paizo discussion boards just can't be a loss for WotC, if only in terms of buzz/hype/viral-marketing.
Look, maybe it is the wrong thread to point that out, but I had to say it some where, and anchovies had been insulted; TO ARMS!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now prior to the last year or two PF would have been nowhere compared to 4e, and as I recall 4vengers used to actively mock anyone who even suggested that would ever change
Actually, I was one of the people who made that claim, but IIRC it was made before 4E was even released. My position was based not on the contents of 4E, but on experience (At that time I'd been through the 2E change, the 3E change, the 3.5 change) and what I know of the strength of branding. I'm not sure everyone here fully appreciates exactly what Paizo has done with Pathfinder: They have effectively gone from nowhere to tied with an established, entrenched industry leader in a handful of years. It's like they went out and created a new cola brand and put it on even footing with Coke. Frankly, most of the smart money was against them. And most of the smart money was wrong. *I* was wrong...I was the wrongest wronginheimer ever to walk the streets of wrongville.
I'm sure we won't all agree on the why Pathfinder has done as amazing well as it has -- personally I think that while Paizo has executed nearly flawlessly, WotC completely (and possibly more importantly) fell apart. In other words, Paizo deserves a great deal of credit for seizing the opportunity, but the opportunity wouldn't have existed in WotC hadn't bungled things so badly in the first place. Much of the management of 4E -- as opposed to the system itself, which I like -- was the RPG marketing equivalent of New Coke. I think the OGL/GSL thing is what did it. IMO Paizo would have had a much harder time making so much headway against a fully open 4E.
I think the reason Paizo "took sales away from WotC" is because Paizo continued with a product that D&D fans liked. 3rd edition, like it or not, caused a massive resurgence in gaming in general, and D&D in particular.
Sure, you can talk about the OGL, and how it created a surge in gaming in general, but what it boils down to is that gamers were happy with 3E. And when 4E came out, and people who liked the game they were playing protested that 4E wasn't D&D, WotC not only ignored them, they acted as if the protests didn't matter at all, because they thought they knew better.
Pathfinder already existed, in its own way, as a support/campaign setting for 3E. Making it into a real game system merely gave those people being ignored by WotC a place to go. Now, WotC has discovered that there were a lot more of them than they realized, and it hurt sales.
Pathfinder didn't "steal" sales from WotC. WotC gave them away by creating the perfect opportunity for a game simlar to 3E to prosper.
Again, I am reminded of New Coke. Did you know that New Coke routinely beat Coke Classic in taste tests? That is, when people didn't know what they were drinking, they like New Coke better. In other words, to a majority of people, it wasn't the product itself that was inferior, it was the handling of the product launch.
So while I do not doubt that some people genuinely simply don't like 4E, I remain unconvinced that WotC's biggest problem with 4E was game design.
|
|
Again, how did wotc mismanage 4E? I'm confused cos majority here who don't play 4E or tried and gave up didn't like the system. Again, i clarify that don't like doesn't mean it is technically a poor game.
Ps: mismanage can be: (a) don't produce pdf copies of their books, (b) came up with DDI, (c) kill dragon n dungeon magazines, (d) poor marketing (e) others
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bugleyman, why do u think its the mgt of 4E instead of what the system did to the "d&d game"?
I think I've kinda talked covered the why, but as far as the what:
1. Killing the OGL. This was basically WotC telling the industry "you're either with us, or you're against us -- and even if you're with us, you're going to get the scraps."
2. Making DDI a closed system. WotC could have easily made APIs to share the DDI with third parties...instead they froze them out. Scraps.
3. Killing Dungeon and Dragon. They could have extended the license and let the mags continue into 4E. I'm not sure Pathfinder RPG would exist if they hadn't killed the mags (though I'm sure there are many here much more qualified to address that than I am).
4. Pulling PDFs -- this was more of an annoyance than a real factor, but it was just another jab at paying customers.
5. And yes, the marketing. While I don't find it blatantly insulting, it definitely had a "we know best" tone that obviously rubbed many people the wrong way.
Add it all up and I don't think the mechanical contents of 4E really mattered all that much. I don't dispute that many people prefer the mechanics of 3/3.5/PF, but that has always been the case upon edition changes. If the industry went, most players would have (albeit reluctantly in some cases) gone. As it turns out, WotC tried to cut everyone else out, and in an OGL world, that was extremely foolish. I sincerely hope they have learned their lesson.
Now prior to the last year or two PF would have been nowhere compared to 4e, and as I recall 4vengers used to actively mock anyone who even suggested that would ever changeActually, I was one of the people who made that claim, but IIRC it was made before 4E was even released. My position was based not on the contents of 4E, but on experience (At that time I'd been through the 2E change, the 3E change, the 3.5 change) and what I know of the strength of branding. I'm not sure everyone here fully appreciates exactly what Paizo has done with Pathfinder: They have effectively gone from nowhere to tied with an established, entrenched industry leader in a handful of years. It's like they went out and created a new cola brand and put it on even footing with Coke. Frankly, most of the smart money was against them. And most of the smart money was wrong. *I* was wrong...I was the wrongest wronginheimer ever to walk the streets of wrongville.
I'm sure we won't all agree on the why Pathfinder has done as amazing well as it has -- personally I think that while Paizo has executed nearly flawlessly, WotC completely (and possibly more importantly) fell apart. In other words, Paizo deserves a great deal of credit for seizing the opportunity, but the opportunity wouldn't have existed in WotC hadn't bungled things so badly in the first place. Much of the management of 4E -- as opposed to the system itself, which I like -- was the RPG marketing equivalent of New Coke. I think the OGL/GSL thing is what did it. IMO Paizo would have had a much harder time making so much headway against a fully open 4E.
I agree their PR has been atrocious since the announcement of 4e. Really appalling. Their decisions re tpp the most short sided of them all.
I disagree with you over the merits, or not, of the system itself Bugle, but I do agree the system was almost the least of the problems with the game. I do also think personally the openly stated aversion to detailed 'fluff' (forgive the term) - which we still are seeing Mr Mearls reference as belonging to 'decadent' D&D - is what killed any chance of my wanting to buy 4e books. If those books had fantastic, imaginative, original, deep and well written settings, characters, events, and storylines - well I'd have ignored the rules and (as I do with Paizo sourcebooks) mined them for fluff gems.
If 5e doesn't reverse this trend against flavour/fluff (whatever you want to call it) and world creation and detail, well I doubt I'll be interested in it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bugleyman, why do u think its the mgt of 4E instead of what the system did to the "d&d game"?I think I've kinda talked covered the why, but as far as the what:
1. Killing the OGL. This was basically WotC telling the industry "you're either with us, or you're against us -- and even if you're with us, you're going to get the scraps."
2. Making DDI a closed system. WotC could have easily made APIs to share the DDI with third parties...instead they froze them out. Scraps.
3. Killing Dungeon and Dragon. They could have extended the license and let the mags continue into 4E. I'm not sure Pathfinder RPG would exist if they hadn't killed the mags (though I'm sure there are many here much more qualified to address that than I am).
4. Pulling PDFs -- this was more of an annoyance than a real factor, but it was just another jab at paying customers.
5. And yes, the marketing. While I don't find it blatantly insulting, it definitely had a "we know best" tone that obviously rubbed many people the wrong way.Add it all up and I don't think the mechanical contents of 4E really mattered all that much. I don't dispute that many people prefer the mechanics of 3/3.5/PF, but that has always been the case upon edition changes. If the industry went, most players would have (albeit reluctantly in some cases) gone. As it turns out, WotC tried to cut everyone else out, and in an OGL world, that was extremely foolish. I sincerely hope they have learned their lesson.
I agree with everythign you've said here except the bit about the mechanics.
For my group of friends who prefer and now purchase PF products and have abandoned 4e, it's ALL ABOUT the mechanics. I don't think they are some sort of bizarre boundary condition. I think they are pretty representative of disillusioned and frustrated ex D&D players. They simply don't like 4e based entirely on its mechanics. Otherwise they'd still be playing it.
I agree their PR has been atrocious since the announcement of 4e. Really appalling. Their decisions re tpp the most short sided of them all.
I disagree with you over the merits, or not, of the system itself Bugle, but I do agree the system was almost the least of the problems with the game. I do also think personally the openly stated aversion to detailed 'fluff' (forgive the term) - which we still are seeing Mr Mearls reference as belonging to 'decadent' D&D - is what killed any chance of my wanting to buy 4e books. If those books had fantastic, imaginative, original, deep and well written settings, characters, events, and storylines - well I'd have ignored the rules and (as I do with Paizo sourcebooks) mined them for fluff gems.
If 5e doesn't reverse this trend against flavour/fluff (whatever you want to call it) and world creation and detail, well I doubt I'll be interested in it.
Don't get me wrong -- obviously you know why you didn't buy into 4E. I'm talking about the market as a whole. The flavor and mechanics reasons that are often cited -- right down to "it's not D&D" -- have been present in every other edition change ever. What wasn't present was the OGL. WotC killed 4E before it ever had a chance when they tried to close it.
|
|
Bugleyman, why do u think its the mgt of 4E instead of what the system did to the "d&d game"?I think I've kinda talked covered the why, but as far as the what:
1. Killing the OGL. This was basically WotC telling the industry "you're either with us, or you're against us -- and even if you're with us, you're going to get the scraps."
2. Making DDI a closed system. WotC could have easily made APIs to share the DDI with third parties...instead they froze them out. Scraps.
3. Killing Dungeon and Dragon. They could have extended the license and let the mags continue into 4E. I'm not sure Pathfinder RPG would exist if they hadn't killed the mags (though I'm sure there are many here much more qualified to address that than I am).
4. Pulling PDFs -- this was more of an annoyance than a real factor, but it was just another jab at paying customers.
5. And yes, the marketing. While I don't find it blatantly insulting, it definitely had a "we know best" tone that obviously rubbed many people the wrong way.Add it all up and I don't think the mechanical contents of 4E really mattered all that much. I don't dispute that many people prefer the mechanics of 3/3.5/PF, but that has always been the case upon edition changes. If the industry went, most players would have gone. As it turns out, WotC tried to cut everyone else out. In an OGL world, that was extremely foolish.
Sorry my friend. I don't like 4E not cos they kill the OGL. TSR didn't give OGL but i still like 1e, 2e, etc.
I don't care less for DDI. It didn't rank in my list.A little peeved on killing my favorite toilet reading magazines but fine, there are others.
PDF was a breaker as space is a concern for me. But if PF don't offer pdf, and i have to choose, i will still buy pf. Moreover, when we started playing in 1e, what the heck is pdf?
Yes. Their "we know best" is insulting. Hence, they didn't listen when they pulled the plug from d&d minis n also went ahead with 4e when we protested.
Bugleyman, why do u think its the mgt of 4E instead of what the system did to the "d&d game"?
Not that you asked me, but I remain convinced that Hasbro took a look at all the third party 3E material that was being published, felt entitled to the profits, and demanded WotC release a non-OGL D&D.
4E is a very workable system, but it would have been much wiser to release 3E and 4E concurrently for a year or two, just to see if there was a shared market for the two system.
Once again, nothing against 4E as a game system, but the market research looked to be on the level of, "Those nerds love D&D, they'd never buy anything else!"
Don't get me wrong -- obviously you know why you didn't buy into 4E. I'm talking about the market as a whole. The flavor a system reasons that are often cited -- right down to "it's not D&D" -- have been present in every other edition change ever. What wasn't present was the OGL.
I think you are conflating correlation with causality.
There is literally nobody I know who dislikes 4e who even cites the OGL as anything to do with their decision to abandon 4e and adopt PF.
Literally NO ONE.
I think you are conflating correlation with causality.
There is literally nobody I know who dislikes 4e who even cites the OGL as anything to do with their decision to abandon 4e and adopt PF.
Literally NO ONE.
You're not paying attention.
I'm not saying that consumers were/are pissed that the OGL was pulled. I'm saying that WotC's attempt to close D&D stopped the industry from moving forward and made an OGL-based competitor (read: Pathfinder) viable. This position is based on evidence and analysis -- so while it might be incorrect, if you're going to disagree with it, you might want to start by understanding it.
Also, conflating means merging two items, not confusing one for the other.
Edit: Sorry if that sounds douchey, but that's what you get when you start shouting.
|
|
Bugleyman, why do u think its the mgt of 4E instead of what the system did to the "d&d game"?Not that you asked me, but I remain convinced that Hasbro took a look at all the third party 3E material that was being published, felt entitled to the profits, and demanded WotC release a non-OGL D&D.
4E is a very workable system, but it would have been much wiser to release 3E and 4E concurrently for a year or two, just to see if there was a shared market for the two system.
Once again, nothing against 4E as a game system, but the market research looked to be on the level of, "Those nerds love D&D, they'd never buy anything else!"
Agree :)
I think you are conflating correlation with causality.
There is literally nobody I know who dislikes 4e who even cites the OGL as anything to do with their decision to abandon 4e and adopt PF.
Literally NO ONE.
Yeah, I agree; that is, I don't think gamers particularly cared about the loss of OGL; I think the OGL prompted Hasbro/WotC to make some hasty decisions in their estimate of their audience.
|
There is literally nobody I know who dislikes 4e who even cites the OGL as anything to do with their decision to abandon 4e and adopt PF.Literally NO ONE.
Now you do. The OGL won massive respect from me.
To bugelyman's list, I only have to add their decision to destroy a number of unfinished stories set in the Realms in an unnecessary reboot of the world to describe my thinking on the move to 4e. I think that their marketing annoyed me more than him though.
I've read 4ed, I've not played in earnest. There are some things that I like, bloodied for instance. However, it seemed that the classes had been balanced against each other, rather than forming a balanced team who had to work together against the adventure.
It's not that gamers didn't like 4e because WotC took the OGL away, it's that, since the OGL made 3e still available, in the form of Pathfinder and other 3PP stuff, they could keep playing and keep getting new material.
Thank you.
Well, Jerry, some of us just follow you around the 5E threads feeling redundant cause you've stated our points better than we could...
On the internet, nobody ever wins.
I agree their PR has been atrocious since the announcement of 4e. Really appalling. Their decisions re tpp the most short sided of them all.
I disagree with you over the merits, or not, of the system itself Bugle, but I do agree the system was almost the least of the problems with the game. I do also think personally the openly stated aversion to detailed 'fluff' (forgive the term) - which we still are seeing Mr Mearls reference as belonging to 'decadent' D&D - is what killed any chance of my wanting to buy 4e books. If those books had fantastic, imaginative, original, deep and well written settings, characters, events, and storylines - well I'd have ignored the rules and (as I do with Paizo sourcebooks) mined them for fluff gems.
If 5e doesn't reverse this trend against flavour/fluff (whatever you want to call it) and world creation and detail, well I doubt I'll be interested in it.
Don't get me wrong -- obviously you know why you didn't buy into 4E. I'm talking about the market as a whole. The flavor and mechanics reasons that are often cited -- right down to "it's not D&D" -- have been present in every other edition change ever. What wasn't present was the OGL. WotC killed 4E before it ever had a chance when they tried to close it.
Hm, partly. I still say if they'd not gone in a backwards direction (back towards Chainmail style skirmish wargame), and thrown the flavour/fluff out because it's 'decadent' or whatever other bizarre reason Mr Mearls believes. If they'd come up with a system more people actually liked. Then, yes PF would still have had a good market thanks to the OGL and WOTC's foolish antagonising of tpps, but more of us would have stuck with 4e, enough it could have had a healthy lifespan.
Bottom line not enough people like it, every other reason is only a contributory factor, not enough people liking it is imo the root problem.
EDIT - I may have just contradicted myself, hey ho.
Bottom line not enough people like it, every other reason is only a contributory factor
*shrug* I disagree...or at least I disagree that the fundamental problem is 4E mechanics. YMMV.
I really can't agree here. The amount and degree of errata for 4E almost amounts to another half edition. That reeks of incompetence, a lack of playtesting, or both.
It's like you didn't even read what I wrote.
Yes, there's more errata. That's obvious.
The fact that there is more errata in 4e doesn't mean that 3e didn't need errata any less! There were just as many things that needed work in 3e (probably more) that didn't get addressed because WotC wasn't making errata or updates a priority.
Also, a very small portion of the update documents is actual errata. Most of the update documents is taken up by rules updates.
I fail to see how having to check your character every few months to see if it works the same, is a good thing.
Oh, you poor thing. It must have been awful for you.
Having to check your character sheet isn't necessarily a good thing (though really, I habitually look over my character sheet all the time no matter what game I'm playing), but having a set of rules that you can feel confident in not having to fiddle with to avoid major problems is a good thing.
Given the choice between the rules changing every other month or no errata, I'll take the no errata. If something truly is bad enough to cause a major balance issue, the DM can disallow it.
I dislike any solution which requires every DM to have an robust grasp of game design in order to make it work.
Also, a very small portion of the update documents is actual errata. Most of the update documents is taken up by rules updates.
I actually found many of those updates to be problematic. I get that it would be nice to have a perfect set of rules -- continuous improvement and all that -- but changes aren't "free" in terms of customer time and effort -- things like the magic missile update should never have been made (imo, of course).
Also, a very small portion of the update documents is actual errata. Most of the update documents is taken up by rules updates.I actually found many of those updates to be problematic. I get that it would be nice to have a perfect set of rules -- continuous improvement and all that -- but changes aren't "free" in terms of customer time and effort -- things like the magic missile update should never have been made (imo, of course).
I agree with the Magic Missile bit. It seemed like a step backwards for the sake of appeasement, which I don't see as a good play.
That said, the Wizard in my regular game loves the hell out of the new Magic Missile. Which is ironic, since he's going after this feat with a pre-requisite of scoring 75 critical hits, and he's not getting any closer by shouting "MAGIC MISSILE!" on his turn.
I do think that one of the reasons the devs felt okay in pursuing this update strategy is that they have the Character Builder in place to take care of the updates for you. I think that if they didn't have this sort of zero-effort update pushing system they probably would have been a lot more reluctant to pursue it.
|
Also, a very small portion of the update documents is actual errata. Most of the update documents is taken up by rules updates.
Rules updates or errata, they change the way the game is played. If they are infrequent and kept to a reasonable level, it's not a big deal. If they are coming at the pace of every other month and a book that was released a few weeks ago is already obsolete because of errata, that is a problem. If Joe's cleric is a decent healer one week and then finds out next week after he levels him and the latest errata or rules update is applied (automatically by the CB), he realizes that he is now a mediocre healer, he's going to be ticked. Then a few months later, Bob's avenger gets the same type of treatment. Those players are going to be upset and rightfully so. If this keeps happening, their frustration will grow, and they may even decide to play something else. That is what constant, never ending errata will get you, and I don't think it's at all good for the game.
*I* was wrong...I was the wrongest wronginheimer ever to walk the streets of wrongville.
What are you trying to say?
..
I'm sure we won't all agree on the why Pathfinder has done as amazing well as it has -- personally I think that while Paizo has executed nearly flawlessly, WotC completely (and possibly more importantly) fell apart. In other words, Paizo deserves a great deal of credit for seizing the opportunity, but the opportunity wouldn't have existed in WotC hadn't bungled things so badly in the first place. Much of the management of 4E -- as opposed to the system itself, which I like -- was the RPG marketing equivalent of New Coke. I think the OGL/GSL thing is what did it. IMO Paizo would have had a much harder time making so much headway against a fully open 4E.
Don't get me wrong -- obviously you know why you didn't buy into 4E. I'm talking about the market as a whole. The flavor and mechanics reasons that are often cited -- right down to "it's not D&D" -- have been present in every other edition change ever. What wasn't present was the OGL. WotC killed 4E before it ever had a chance when they tried to close it.
Well put.
Rules updates or errata, they change the way the game is played. If they are infrequent and kept to a reasonable level, it's not a big deal. If they are coming at the pace of every other month and a book that was released a few weeks ago is already obsolete because of errata, that is a problem. If Joe's cleric is a decent healer one week and then finds out next week after he levels him and the latest errata or rules update is applied (automatically by the CB), he realizes that he is now a mediocre healer, he's going to be ticked. Then a few months later, Bob's avenger gets the same type of treatment. Those players are going to be upset and rightfully so. If this keeps happening, their frustration will grow, and they may even decide to play something else. That is what constant, never ending errata will get you, and I don't think it's at all good for the game.
I'm not sure that I have a terribly high opinion of gamers who throw a fit over having some of their too-powerful character options toned back a bit. I've seen a lot of that behavior in WoW. It's a lot of whining over a minor inconvenience that produces a very positive effect on the game as a whole.
|
|
Rules updates or errata, they change the way the game is played. If they are infrequent and kept to a reasonable level, it's not a big deal. If they are coming at the pace of every other month and a book that was released a few weeks ago is already obsolete because of errata, that is a problem. If Joe's cleric is a decent healer one week and then finds out next week after he levels him and the latest errata or rules update is applied (automatically by the CB), he realizes that he is now a mediocre healer, he's going to be ticked. Then a few months later, Bob's avenger gets the same type of treatment. Those players are going to be upset and rightfully so. If this keeps happening, their frustration will grow, and they may even decide to play something else. That is what constant, never ending errata will get you, and I don't think it's at all good for the game.I'm not sure that I have a terribly high opinion of gamers who throw a fit over having some of their too-powerful character options toned back a bit. I've seen a lot of that behavior in WoW. It's a lot of whining over a minor inconvenience that produces a very positive effect on the game as a whole.
Except, not a single one of the people I knew that were upset over the errata had a too-powerful character. There were no twin striking half-elf avenger/daggermasters, ranger/fighter/pitfighters or anything even remotely like that. They had run of mill characters that got class abilities and powers nerfed for no apparent reason. I understand that some things need to errated if they really throw the balance of the game out of whack, but what WotC was doing with the constant rules updates seemed excessive and unnecessary. The errata did nothing to improve the play experience of people I knew who played LFR, it only served to tick them off when their average characters got nerfed for no apparent reason.
As for their basic stated intentions, I definitely think of it as a step in the right direction. I'm just going to withhold judgement until I see results. Personal biases are really useless at this point. Hopefully by the end though, 5th edition won't make me cringe every time I hear it.
What is not to like about the stated intentions -
1) Integrate feedback from fans over a long play test to refine a sketched out alpha system, to;
2) get to a point where a group can play any "type" of D&D you like, through switching rules on/off.
If they get to that point I will be more than happy, if not I will carry on with 4E mixed with Paizo's fantastic Golarion and a sprinkling of rules from the Rules Cyclopedia and Ad&D.
(It was a fine moment going up to my parents loft last year and finding a taped up box, unopened for 10+ years. Book on the top of the box had a picture of a knight on horseback fleeing in panic from a huge dragon head. The legend that is the Rules Cyclopedia! Also included in the box AD&D three core books, the Wrath of the Immortals and a collection of well thumbed Mystara Gazeteers, and loads of modules including my fave CM1 Test of the Warlords (which sounds a lot like Kingmaker :))
Missed 3.X so don't have the big emotional investment in those mechanics which some seem to have, so for me its all gravy!
|
I'm not sure everyone here fully appreciates exactly what Paizo has done with Pathfinder: They have effectively gone from nowhere to tied with an established, entrenched industry leader in a handful of years. It's like they went out and created a new cola brand and put it on even footing with Coke.
I think there's a bit of a flaw in that logic. Paizo didn't make a "new cola". They slightly altered the recipe for Coke.
I'm not sure everyone here fully appreciates exactly what Paizo has done with Pathfinder: They have effectively gone from nowhere to tied with an established, entrenched industry leader in a handful of years. It's like they went out and created a new cola brand and put it on even footing with Coke.I think there's a bit of a flaw in that logic. Paizo didn't make a "new cola". They slightly altered the recipe for Coke.
They also didn't come from "nowhere." They were already well-known and well-connected from their time as publisher of the official D&D periodicals, and had a built-in customer base for their new product line (unfinished magazine subscriptions were automatically rolled over into Pathfinder).
Pathfinder's rise is absolutely an incredible accomplishment. It doesn't need embellishment for that to remain true.
|
Will Paizo be forced to create a Pathfinder 2.0 and if they do, if it's significantly different than Pathfinder they'll basically be in the same position that WOTC was with 4E a few years ago with people bailing on Pathfinder to go play an "official" and "supported" ruleset.Let's not kid ourselves. Pathfinder 2e is inevitable.
But imagine this...
5e takes best parts of 3.x, 4e and Pathfinder, improves upon them all and we get an AMAZING system design called 5e...
Then Pathfinder, already growing and evolving takes 5e and Pathfinder and improves upon them to get Pathfinder 2e, and EVEN BETTER system...
and it snowballs in a 5-10 year cycle. The average edition has always been in a 5-10 year range.
From the original D&D pamphlets, to the basic box sets, to Advanced D&D, to 2nd Edition AD&D, to D&D 3e, to D&D 3.5, to 4e, to Pathfinder... that is eight generations (and yes I have played every single one- even the original pamphlets).
BTW my FAVORITE edition is AD&D, hands down.
I think their 'stated intentions' are noble, but they may be over-reaching. Some bridges can't be rebuilt (but I hope I'm wrong).
I like what I am hearing. I also liked what I was hearing about 4e, before it came out. I was sorely disappointed.
However, I won't hold a grudge - they can't all be gems. The old (3e) team hit one out of the park.