Will you be switching to D&D Next when it comes out or will you stay with Pathfinder?


4th Edition

901 to 950 of 1,528 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That would be a negative. I like Pathfinder just fine and WotC has acted like a bunch of bratty children over the last few years, so I will not support that in such a major way. As I stated in the other thread, I will buy Magic: The Gathering stuff and MAYBE a book or two that looks intriguing, but I will not play D&D Next. I would simply buy products that had a cool premise and convert them to Pathfinder. If Next is anything like 4th, though, that will be only a few books.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Ran it with my group last night, and I think we all feel the same with it. It's something that we're going to play. For those that haven't touched it because they think it's the exact same thing as 4th or they think WotC is just horrible now because of 4th, you're really being extremely arrogant and closed minded. Yes, I will agree with most of you that we definitely need to see what the PHB, DMG, and MM bring, but from actually running it, having my group bring suggestions that are becoming house rules at this point, the fact my group actually like the pregens, and that my fiancé still enjoyed it despite being slaughter right off the bat (she learned just how squishy wizards are), I'd have to say it's very worth looking into. But you gotta some how play it to realize that it's not a carbon copy of 4th, but not the exact feel of 3.5/PF. Just my two cents.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
As far as I can tell, the whole "adjustable dials"/modularity thing isn't part of the game. Isn't even really being talked about any more. The only vestige I see is the "Use feats or just get stat increases" thing.

It's implemented. New things are being talked about. There are a lot of sidebars in the basic rules talking about optional variants and the DMG will contain many more. If the feats things is all you know about then you're going based on word of mouth rather than looking into the product yourself.

Optional systems off the top of my head:

alternate ability score generation
alternate racial stats depending on race (human is one)
optional encumbrance rules vs the default carry capacity
feats


Buri wrote:
thejeff wrote:
As far as I can tell, the whole "adjustable dials"/modularity thing isn't part of the game. Isn't even really being talked about any more. The only vestige I see is the "Use feats or just get stat increases" thing.
It's implemented. New things are being talked about. There are a lot of sidebars in the basic rules talking about optional variants and the DMG will contain many more. If the feats things is all you know about then you're going based on word of mouth rather than looking into the product yourself.

I've read through the Basic pdf. I don't have the Starter Set yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I added a list of optional rules built in I could think of. They're all in the Basic pdf.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh good lord. If you're counting alternate ability score generation , that's been a feature since AD&D. That's not modularity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sure it is. There are three forms of ability score generation provided. Use whichever one your group likes. That is modularity.

Also, don't discount the others by soap boxing on one you dislike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's say I thought the original goals were a little bit loftier and I wouldn't count that towards filling them.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Buri, are you a WotC employee? Your posts read like a publicity campaign. :P


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, yes, I'm the CEO. :D

I can't bring myself to quite simply avoid coming here because I've been a PF player and GM for a while. I can see why there is bias on a competitors forum but to wholly discount things when it's obvious you either haven't even looked at the competing product, you're lying, or being intentionally obtuse just grates me. In the other thread about trust, people really need to grow up and learn to be accountable for themselves which is another thing that grates on me. Actual age is secondary there which is even more frustrating.


The Silver Prince wrote:
That would be a negative. I like Pathfinder just fine and WotC has acted like a bunch of bratty children over the last few years, so I will not support that in such a major way. As I stated in the other thread, I will buy Magic: The Gathering stuff and MAYBE a book or two that looks intriguing, but I will not play D&D Next. I would simply buy products that had a cool premise and convert them to Pathfinder. If Next is anything like 4th, though, that will be only a few books.

I will be trying out 5th ed with some friends but I am unsure I would buy it unless I really like it OR unless a lot of other groups start playing it. I acutally liked 4th ed ok but no one played it so I got rid of it and played Pathfinder and ended up liking Pathfinder more.

Shadow Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Without seeing the final version I don't think anyone can really comment on what is essentially a sneak peak at the very basic rules. The options you are talking about seem to return the game back to something that is still very 3rd ed. Once we get the 3 core (and I'm sure I'll buy them) I think it may be woth commenting since that will give a real idea of what the system is like and were it may be going. Then after the first few splatbooks we should get a real feel for what is going to happen with the game.

As for bias on competitors forum, have you looked at the WotC forum recently? I've been playing games for almost 30 years now, through every edition of D&D and I can tell you now that system bias is just another aspect of the gamer mind. The rancor that exist between some pathfinder/D&D fans is incredible. The internet has simply made it easier to spit venom anonymously. Before you worry about the bias here look up two fans credited on the new D&D stuff, they have some interesting ideas (and I don't mean that in a positive way)


Buri wrote:

Optional systems off the top of my head:

alternate ability score generation
alternate racial stats depending on race (human is one)
optional encumbrance rules vs the default carry capacity
feats

thejeff wrote:
Let's say I thought the original goals were a little bit loftier and I wouldn't count that towards filling them.

Yeah, if the above is the kind of thing that all this talk of modularity is about, color me unimpressed. D&D has had this kind of modularity -- aka 'variant rules' -- since day one. And besides, I've been writing variant rules of my own for quite a while, without any rulebook's go-ahead.

I can see the appeal for DMs who aren't confident enough to make their own house rules, and calling out D&D's modularity might make a great marketing point, but it's all lost on me.


Buri wrote:
I can't bring myself to quite simply avoid coming here because I've been a PF player and GM for a while. I can see why there is bias on a competitors forum but to wholly discount things when it's obvious you either haven't even looked at the competing product, you're lying, or being intentionally obtuse just grates me. In the other thread about trust, people really need to grow up and learn to be accountable for themselves which is another thing that grates on me. Actual age is secondary there which is even more frustrating.

I do however agree with you here. I haven't read beyond the OP of the trust thread because I know I'll faceplant myself into a concussion. :p


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As someone who was in the DDN playtest and liking what I saw... I'm going to use both. Together.

Both games (as well as other editions of D&D) have some good ideas, and for the most part can be made to be modified to work together.

And given that you don't really need that many books at the end of the day, I plan on using as many of the books and mash them up together as I can.

I don't have a favourite edition, and it's AWESOME!


I agree with what was said above. Hard to make a true judgment about 5th edition just from the basic pdf and starter set. But I am liking what I see so far.

Knowing some things, I really don't like that there are only 3 subclasses for each class (sorcerer gets a paltry 2, while wizard gets 8 [1 for each school] and cleric gets 7 [1 for each domain]). I have a feeling that the feats, overall, are gonna be stronger than some people will be comfortable with, especially those who want a power level closer to AD&D levels. Also, some of the PHB classes may make people upset/annoyed.

I hope more subclasses will be published quickly, as 3 variants (or 2 for the poor sorcerer) is far too few to make characters feel unique and not just clones.

I hope it will be easy enough to convert older edition material without too much headache and hassle, because the base races and classes are too overdone, and also because I like a number of the options Paizo has available. I would like to be able to convert some of those (especially the sorcerer bloodlines and such).

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It will depend on a few factors:

1. Popularity - Will I be able to find other people to play it with?
2. Support - Will it get continued support in the form of adventures and setting material, as well as mechanics supplements. This is where 4e went wrong.
3. The system itself - Looking great as of the Basic PDF...hopefully it stays that way.

Based purely on the Basic PDF, I prefer 5e to Pathfinder by a lot. Pathfinder isn't helped by the fact that every release in their RPG line since the APG seems to be diminishing in quality (in my less than humble opinion). Pathfinder Unchained also seems like it could be heralding a 2nd edition.

But I also prefer Swords & Wizardry to either 5e (as it currently stands) or Pathfinder.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cat-thulhu wrote:
Buri, are you a WotC employee? Your posts read like a publicity campaign. :P

Dude, have you read some of the Paizo cheerleader posts here?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the background mechanic also goes a long way to making a character feel "unique", but I guess that depends on what your idea of feeling unique is- some people want to a lot of mechanical options to make a character feel unique and other players can play two characters that are almost identically mechanically but have them feel completely different based on things like personality and background.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
I think the background mechanic also goes a long way to making a character feel "unique", but I guess that depends on what your idea of feeling unique is- some people want to a lot of mechanical options to make a character feel unique and other players can play two characters that are almost identically mechanically but have them feel completely different based on things like personality and background.

Having started D&D in 1981, I am always surprised when people complain about not having enough options (usually mechanical options) to make their characters feel "unique." Basic D&D (the B/X version) and 1E AD&D had almost NO mechanical device for making your characters "unique" yet, somehow, we managed to achieve that goal anyway.

(Grumbles something about kids and my lawn...)


This also used to be a D&D board. A lot of us started posting here back when paizo was still Dungeon and Dragon magazines and pathfinder didn't exist.

Buri wrote:

Oh, yes, I'm the CEO. :D

I can't bring myself to quite simply avoid coming here because I've been a PF player and GM for a while. I can see why there is bias on a competitors forum but to wholly discount things when it's obvious you either haven't even looked at the competing product, you're lying, or being intentionally obtuse just grates me. In the other thread about trust, people really need to grow up and learn to be accountable for themselves which is another thing that grates on me. Actual age is secondary there which is even more frustrating.


At this point, it's a direct competitor. They no longer do that and are not aligned with Wizards or D&D outside of the OGL. They are out for their own market share.


P.H. Dungeon wrote:
I think the background mechanic also goes a long way to making a character feel "unique", but I guess that depends on what your idea of feeling unique is- some people want to a lot of mechanical options to make a character feel unique and other players can play two characters that are almost identically mechanically but have them feel completely different based on things like personality and background.

I have been using a background mechanic in my D&D games since 2002 lifted it from Vampire the Masquerade and expanded on it in the ensuing years. However, this is one if the reasons I will be picking up the books to see how 5E does it. Perhaps I can implement changes to what I already use. Getting excited for the new PHB.


A few backgrounds are the Basic PDF as are descriptions on how to generally treat them.


Cat-thulhu wrote:
As for bias on competitors forum, have you looked at the WotC forum recently?

I have been tempted to bring this up in several arguments, but in the end it doesn't matter what is happening on other forums. There has been a lack of civility on these forums that I have never liked.

I left other forums before because I like several Paizo staff and people on those forums seemed content with the few who just threw casual (and not so casual) insults at Paizo and staff. I tried to fight it, but the nicest response I got back was along the lines of, "I see what you are saying, but I still say they are bottom feeding thieves."

Seeing that same sort of thing here which I've tried sometimes to push back against, but more often it has just made me want to stay away from the forum altogether.

I'm certain that the people here feel that their logic is completely reasonable and just like how the posters on the WotC felt. Nothing I say is going to change anyone's mind that [company] is a big jerk. But I'll take a shot to appeal to some to try not to drive anyone away from the forum by being dismissive/insulting of a company/product/person that they like.

Because I sort of like these forums.


Blazej, I'm not calling you a liar, but I'd really like an example. Granted, I've only stuck to the 5th ed. forums, but I haven't seen that kind of behavior there.


Buri wrote:
Blazej, I'm not calling you a liar, but I'd really like an example. Granted, I've only stuck to the 5th ed. forums, but I haven't seen that kind of behavior there.

If you really want me to I can search for it, but this stuff is several years old at this point from when I left those forums in the first place. I'll poke around for it to see if I can pull up one easily, but in any case I'll send it by PM rather than posting it here.

It is certainly possible that the forum has changed in the time that has passed though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
Blazej, I'm not calling you a liar, but I'd really like an example. Granted, I've only stuck to the 5th ed. forums, but I haven't seen that kind of behavior there.

I've seen it, but it's been relatively uncommon (compared to the vitriol going the other way) and it's usually leapt upon rather quickly by other posters (myself included) who don't see that behavior as desirable in a given online community. I think at this point it's mostly a relic of the past.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not an either/or for me.

From what I've seen so far, I probably will be playing 5E. This edition looks like they've completely turned around from what I thought was the wrong direction with 4E, and it also looks like it's moving away from some of what I don't like about PF, especially the Magic Mart.

What I want in a rules set is something that's very flexible, that also plays quickly. Player options are nice, but I'm much more interested in GM options; things that can be easily added or left out to better fit different world concepts. I also like it when the game doesn't constantly intrude on the roleplay and remind everybody that this is a game. For example, if I make it a house rule that the rule books can't be referenced during play, does that make the game essentially unplayable? How easy is it for players to describe their characters' actions without using game speak? (I have no personal desire to ever hear the phrase "5 foot step" again.) Are players encouraged and helped to create a character rather than just a build? And a big one for me; do the abilities and limits of the PCs make sense in terms of the world, or do the explanations involve metagame concepts? In all of these areas, 5E seems to me like a step in the right direction.

As a GM, I've never used any official game world, and it isn't likely that I ever will: it's way too much fun to create my own. Sometimes I do buy published game worlds, however, so I can mine them for ideas. For that, I prefer settings that go outside generic (sometimes called "extruded") fantasy and show how the game can be used to do something unique. Some of my favorites in the past have been the Historical Reference series for 2E, Spelljammer, Oriental Adventures, Birthright, Ravenloft, and Al-Qadim. I've never really liked the Forgotten Realms that much; Greyhawk is my favorite of the generic settings (Golarion is probably my least favorite).

When I read the Basic Rules I saw some things that I immediately thought needed to be changed, but none of them alter the basic mechanic or give me reason not to want to play this game.

Sovereign Court

So, after playing two test sessions of this, one as a player, other as a GM, I can certainly say that I will not be buying a single book. It's not for me. Nor people I game with. And I definitely don't want to introduce it to new people. Pathfinder is more than good enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
So, after playing two test sessions of this, one as a player, other as a GM, I can certainly say that I will not be buying a single book. It's not for me. Nor people I game with. And I definitely don't want to introduce it to new people. Pathfinder is more than good enough.

Can you detail why? Which pain points did you run into?


Buri wrote:
A few backgrounds are the Basic PDF as are descriptions on how to generally treat them.

Eh, I would rather wait to have the book in my hands.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes Hama, can you expand on why you do not like 5E?

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed a post. This kind of baiting is not OK here.


From what little I've seen, I like some of the stuff, and don't like other parts. My concern isn't whether it will be a good game, as even 4E wasn't a bad game in and of itself, it's whether a)it's different enough to justify buying into and learning a new system and b)WotC actually takes the time to properly support it. It's definitely not a system I am interested in buying right away, but I'll keep an eye on it, and if it's still getting mostly positive reviews by more than a small handful of people and there still seems to be a fair number of folks playing it in a year or two, I might reconsider. WotC does seem to be doing a better job this time around in managing all the little details both within the system itself and how they market it, so there is good reason to believe that it could succeed where 4E failed.

Liberty's Edge

Switching isn’t the word for me. I’ll happily be playing both it seems.

My weekly Sunday crew of 5 players have just finished our 9th consecutive Adventure Path. We’re all well into our 40’s and we’re all feeling a little burnt out with the magic item tracking we had at high levels and the gameplay in general once our characters hit the teens. We all participated in the 5E playtest and would like to give the system a fair try when we start our next campaign to give it a proper workout.

My twice-a-month game on Saturdays of a rotating league of players numbering over 20 (ranging in ages from 15 to 52) play Pathfinder Society scenarios mostly and since the characters never pass 11th level there’s no burnout and everyone loves the gameplay so I’ll still be running Pathfinder as well.

Good times indeed!

Sovereign Court

Let's see. First thing is combat. Yes, it flows smoother, but the lack of tactical element i have gotten used to over 14 years od 3rd edition cannot just be hammered out. But tactics? not much.

Second, Classes just feel wrong to me. It is an interesting system, easy to grasp, but I simply cannot like it, and I even tried hard.

Most magical items are too 2ED for me, although I like that they returned to the old formula for ability granting equipment. A belt of giant strength gives you a fixed strength. It is very useful for some, not so much for others. But when our wizard put it on after the fighter went down in a fight and proceeded to slaughter everything in his wake with a staff, it was glorious.

I can't really point out anything specific. The whole game bothers me. Maybe it's simply the fact that it's not Pathfinder and that i have a natural reaction to dislike anything that comes from WOTC, but I just couldn't bring myself to like it.

I'll give it a couple of years, and then try it again. I might change my mind.


Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a post. This kind of baiting is not OK here.

Guilty as charged. I apologize to Hama.


Hama wrote:
Maybe it's simply the fact that it's not Pathfinder and that i have a natural reaction to dislike anything that comes from WOTC,

Props for being aware of your possible biases (seriously).

Sorry 5E isn't to your liking, but it sounds like you really like Pathfinder, which is awesome. Everybody wins. :)

Sovereign Court

You know like you can't really point out anything specific about something that you don't like, but you end up really disliking the whole? That kind of feeling.


Hama wrote:
You know like you can't really point out anything specific about something that you don't like, but you end up really disliking the whole? That kind of feeling.

At the end of the day, preferences are feelings, and they don't have to be logical (not to imply that yours aren't). We like what we like. All too often I tend to forget that (my wife is convinced I'm half Vulcan).

For myself, I was drawn to Paizo during the Dungeon era because they were by far the best source of material for my ongoing campaign. The fact that the mechanics they used were all core was the ideal situation for me -- very little additional crunch (which I tend to dislike), but tons of first-class creativity. This situation persisted through the 3.5 adventure paths. Alas, nothing lasts forever. And in fairness to Paizo, I don't think that was a sustainable business model once 3.5 went out of print.

When 4E was released I embraced it wholeheartedly, only to watch WotC make a series of bad decisions that I believe ultimately doomed what I found to be a very promising set of rules.

As 5E approaches, I find I (again) like the rules, but revelations about organized play (you can't play the adventures at home, for example) have made it unlikely that I will be leaving PFS. PFS is by far and away the best-run OP campaign with which I've ever been involved (PFS>LG>LFR imho). So while I'm of mixed feelings about the Pathfinder RPG rules (I prefer something more rules-light, especially as I get older), I have other reasons to stick around.

My sincere hope (which is often enough to invite curses here :P) is a cleaned-up, simplified 2nd edition of Pathfinder in the next few years. I simply don't care about spending $50 or $100 for new rule books, because the time and effort saved are more than worth the expense (assuming improvement, of course). Something with the clarity, simplicity, and organization of the Beginner Box would be fantastic.


Hama wrote:

I can't really point out anything specific. The whole game bothers me. Maybe it's simply the fact that it's not Pathfinder and that i have a natural reaction to dislike anything that comes from WOTC, but I just couldn't bring myself to like it.

I'll give it a couple of years, and then try it again. I might change my mind.

I guess that's more or less where I'm sitting. The system seems good, but not really great, and while I'm willing to give WotC time to show they have learned from their mistakes, I need to see some evidence of it before I look at any of their product seriously. If in a few years, they have proven their critics wrong, and the system has shown itself to have legs, I'll reconsider, until then, I'll be watching from the sidelines on this one.


sunshadow21 wrote:
I guess that's more or less where I'm sitting. The system seems good, but not really great, and while I'm willing to give WotC time to show they have learned from their mistakes, I need to see some evidence of it before I look at any of their product seriously. If in a few years, they have proven their critics wrong, and the system has shown itself to have legs, I'll reconsider, until then, I'll be watching from the sidelines on this one.

In a way I feel bad for the WotC designers. I expect they had no control over some of the steps WotC took to alienate customers, and I think they're doing good work. Hopefully the new leadership isn't so out-of-touch.


bugleyman wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
I guess that's more or less where I'm sitting. The system seems good, but not really great, and while I'm willing to give WotC time to show they have learned from their mistakes, I need to see some evidence of it before I look at any of their product seriously. If in a few years, they have proven their critics wrong, and the system has shown itself to have legs, I'll reconsider, until then, I'll be watching from the sidelines on this one.
In a way I feel bad for the WotC designers. I expect they had no control over some of the steps WotC took to alienate customers, and I think they're doing good work. Hopefully the new leadership isn't so out-of-touch.

I'll give them credit for doing things this time around that don't immediately scare people off like many of the the missteps they had with 4E. If they can build on that by giving it proper support and maintaining a consistent vision of what they want the system to become, they have a decent shot at winning back at least some folks, though they will never be able to displace Pathfinder at this point. WotC can compete with Pathfinder with the right decisions, but Paizo has a loyal enough following that as long as they don't make any major mistakes, Pathfinder will do just fine regardless of how 5E does.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Nope not touching the thing less to do with the rules and more to do with certain individuas involved with the project

Link

Dark Archive

I pan to play 5e at home and pathfinder online using Fantasy Grounds mainly for PFS games, got to get that next star!

Liberty's Edge

Kevin Mack wrote:

Nope not touching the thing less to do with the rules and more to do with certain individuas involved with the project

Link

I find this quote from your link interesting:

"(grognard means old warrior, but in the RPG community is has come to mean one stuck in the past)"

I am part of the RPG community and I completely disagree with this statement. Grognards are gamers who enjoy older versions of TRPGs. They aren't stuck in the past.

I find it interesting that this person feels free to insult grognards.

Also, and in this quote they're refers to RPG Pundit:
"Specifically they’re part of the ‘Old School Rules’ movement: people who think everything since the earliest editions of D&D was unnecessary."

This is factually untrue. RPG Pundit has posted his support of 5E not to mention LotFP and DCC RPG among many other games.

I don't really care one way or another, but the fact is both sides in this struggle insult other people. RPG Pundit does it while dropping the f bomb and this blogger does it by deriding gamers who like older RPGs (even though in many cases they also like some new RPGs).

Should people be banned from making RPGs for having opinions others don't like? I agree with you that you should vote with your wallet to answer that question. I understand that both sides here make attacks not just one side and that won't stop me from enjoying a great game like 5E. To me, Wizards is obviously listening to both sides and only taking the best opinions and thoughts on D&D from each one. That seems prudent and reasonable.


Charlie D. wrote:


Also, and in this quote they're refers to RPG Pundit:
"Specifically they’re part of the ‘Old School Rules’ movement: people who think everything since the earliest editions of D&D was unnecessary."

This is factually untrue. RPG Pundit has posted his support of 5E not to mention LotFP and DCC RPG among many other games.
I don't really care one way or another, but the fact is both sides in this struggle insult other people. RPG Pundit does it while dropping the f bomb and this blogger does it by deriding gamers who like older RPGs (even though in many cases they also like some new RPGs).

By "some new RPGs", you mean ones that deliberately emulate the style of Old School D&D, right? Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it's hardly a counter.

More importantly, you completely ignore the crazy pointed out in the article. The conspiracy of Swine trying to destroy RPGs (by making RPGs that aren't sufficiently old school apparently) and then "social justice" as also a conspiracy to ruin RPGs.

Or the alleged harassment. Or any of the actual real problems pointed out.

Honestly, I agree with your nitpick about grognards. That's not the meaning I'm familiar with. But that's almost completely irrelevant to the larger point of the article in the link.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:

More importantly, you completely ignore the crazy pointed out in the article. The conspiracy of Swine trying to destroy RPGs (by making RPGs that aren't sufficiently old school apparently) and then "social justice" as also a conspiracy to ruin RPGs.

Or the alleged harassment. Or any of the actual real problems pointed out.

Honestly, I agree with your nitpick about grognards. That's not the meaning I'm familiar with. But that's almost completely irrelevant to the larger point of the article in the link.

RPG Pundit has loud opinions and rants. I'm not arguing about that. I have yet to read something by him in which he says social justice is trying to ruin RPGs as you posted however.

His opponents, however, also rant and have loud opinions. That is my point. Those of us in the middle have to get along with everybody and that includes both sides.

I visit both sites that represent the extreme polar opposites of belief that goes way beyond gaming. Both sides feel very strongly about their opinion and will tell you why you are wrong if you don't share their opinion. One side uses banning and locking down discussion. The other side drops the f bomb and rants back and forth.

While the second option can come across as harassment, I have seen people challenge RPG Pundit on his own site and not get banned. You can't do that on many RPG forums, push back against the owner and the owner will take it (RPG Pundit will respond and push back but you don't get banned).

Now, should Wizards be able to hire him? Well, the gamers will vote with their wallets. The question is, if you have a skill and want to practice it should you prevented from doing so because a group of other people don't like what you say? Both sides of this issue seem to want to stop the other side from making RPGs and RPG related discussion. In my opinion the only way to settle it is to let both sides hash it out while staying within the law.

901 to 950 of 1,528 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Will you be switching to D&D Next when it comes out or will you stay with Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.