|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anti-Paizo Mini-Rant, spoilerd for the sensitive
*snip*
Thank you for that. That pretty much sums up the "jump the shark" comment I made earlier, and why I dropped all my subscriptions a while back. I didn't feel like arguing with s or mods. I've seen too many devolve once dissenting opinions of anything that someone doesn't like.
I just vote with my wallet. FGG looks good as does a few others.
I will give it a try. But the system that peeks the most interest from my standpoint is 'The Strange'. I am a firm believer that an RPG that spans multiple genres, that is able to produce content similar to Paizo or WOTC (if they get back on track) will be the future. But I also think that a class based system is key, so if GURPS or even Savage worlds did the same thing, I would be in Nirvana.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it was a "hey, we just threw out the old rules and designed a brand new game from scratch, only reusing the old name to fool you into thinking it's the same thing, which means you'll have to buy a new version of every single book we ever published just to have the same features in this one as you did before. Oh, and obviously this will be no better than previous versions because in a few years we'll realize it was just as broken as all the other versions and needs redoing all over again.", then yeah, that'd be me out too. I'm interested in playing and buying material for this game, not in starting over with a brand new one. If I actually want a new game, I'll look for a new game, I don't appreciate having that decision made for me by a publisher tearing the ongoing support for my current game out from under me.See, this is why WotC can't win. If they deliver a new edition that overhauls the game or approaches it from a different design perspective, one contingent of people get upset. If they deliver an iterative update that patches holes but doesn't make any drastic changes, another contingent of people get upset. In the first instance, WotC is accused of "tearing ongoing support out from under" the players. In the latter instance, WotC is accused of fleecing its customers by asking them to buy a whole new set of books with only minor changes.
The thing is, I don't expect them to win. ;) I'm quite happy how things have worked out for me, I'm not complaining (as such) about what they did - they made their move for their reasons, and I made my move for my reasons. On the one side, I don't like what they did. On the other, I don't feel they have to answer to me for it. They should absolutely do what is best for their business, and I'll do what is best for my game. It's unfortunate that those two paths parted, but it happens. I moved on, I found an alternative that suited me far better than what was on offer. Another company came out with a product that met my needs far better, that's just business.
All I'm saying is that a publisher that wants my loyalty as a customer needs to earn it by continuing to provide me with compatible material and updates to the product I bought. Whichever publisher can meet my "customer model" best gets the first dibs on my cash. Other customers have different demands, and at the end of the day a business has to choose which set of customers it's going to keep happy. At some point, if the number of customers that want a brand new game outweighs the number that want the current one, they would be silly not to move on and create that new game. As long as nobody is forcing me to buy that new game, there's no problem :)
Paizo offered me what I, as a customer, wanted. I can't imagine any possible reason for sticking with 4e after I realized it wasn't what I wanted out of an RPG (even though I did actually buy quite a few 4e releases), and after seeing there was a way to keep my ceiling-to-floor stack of 3.5 books relevant and supported. It's extremely unlikely anyone can offer me something to pull me away from Pathfinder while it continues to be produced in its current form, any more than I'm likely to buy a Playstation just because of one game that's availble on it that isn't on my 360 or my PC. At the point where I'm forced to move on, I'll do so in the way that's most comfortable, and it's extremely unlikely that "customer loyalty" is going to play any part in my decision (just as it didn't when I moved to the 360 from my PS2, I just looked at both available options and chose the one that looked best for me at the time.)
I certainly don't feel I owe WotC my custom, to come flying back and welcome 5e with open arms just because it's got a D&D logo on the front, and especially as I'd have to stop buying Pathfinder to do so (why would I stop when I'm happy with it?) However, I'm on record as saying I'll be buying the core books (ironically, just because they have a D&D logo on them). Of course, were Paizo to create a brand new game and move the Pathfinder brand to that, I'd treat it as the exact same situation and go looking once again for the game that best meets my needs. It's also quite likely 5e would be on that particular shortlist, along with any 3PP that picked up the 3.5/PF ball to run with it.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scott gets upset if you attack Wotc (or he perceives an attack). But he'll deny unto the day he dies that the marketing campaign for 4e and 4E Realms (including Bruce Cordell's ridiculous idiocy on Candlekeep followed by the same but through a sock puppet) really ticked off a bunch of "graybeards" (many of whom aren't "gray" nor have beards, having been born in the Seventies and early Eighties).
See, he has a problem with seeing things through anyone else's eyes. You know, that thing called "empathy". All he sees is that some people dislike the object of his fan love, and he feels compelled to defend everything they did from '07 to, well, ten minutes ago, with a ferocity I rarely see in a mother bear protecting her cubs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scott gets upset if you attack Wotc (or he perceives an attack). But he'll deny unto the day he dies that the marketing campaign for 4e and 4E Realms (including Bruce Cordell's ridiculous idiocy on Candlekeep followed by the same but through a sock puppet) really ticked off a bunch of "graybeards" (many of whom aren't "gray" nor have beards, having been born in the Seventies and early Eighties).
See, he has a problem with seeing things through anyone else's eyes. You know, that thing called "empathy". All he sees is that some people dislike the object of his fan love, and he feels compelled to defend everything they did from '07 to, well, ten minutes ago, with a ferocity I rarely see in a mother bear protecting her cubs.
Eh, Scott's okay, I like a lot of the non-gaming-related (and dare I say, far more important than silly little make-pretend games we all play with - or without - tiny figures) stuff he says on here. We just have vastly different opinions of the D&D branding and customer loyalty to it :)
|
|
Now of course if you are able to play multiple games and you are able, and want, to play both then you are lucky. Some of us don't have that luxury and have to decide which game they will run. I am planning on buying the books but I think my group and I will continue with Pathfinder while maybe playing a game of D&D every now and then in the future.
How about you?
Nope. I might be enjoying the novels, but won't be buying any rules from them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We will just have to agree to disagree Bill. When two companies both in the business of making a profit and sell RPGs. I think it is consumer hypocrisy to accuse one of greed and and not the other. Haters gonna hate for any and every reason."Consumer hypocrisy"?
Does that apply to all businesses competing in the same field? Differences in behavior, ownership or business plans between the companies can give no reason to consider one more greedy than another?
Depends. when one dresses up "greedy" as paying their bills and paying employses....how is it any different.
It depends on points of view. I've seen ones posting WOTC marketin the new edition as greedy, but some how paizo is not? A flip sie view could be, paizo is just as greedy, look at all the products paizo is pushing, how much splat paizo releases.....how I that not greedy in another's opinion, any different from WOTC? Dressing it up as how it was characterized earlier in the thread doesn't make it any different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends. when one dresses up "greedy" as paying their bills and paying employses....how is it any different.
It depends on points of view. I've seen ones posting WOTC marketin the new edition as greedy, but some how paizo is not? A flip sie view could be, paizo is just as greedy, look at all the products paizo is pushing, how much splat paizo releases.....how I that not greedy in another's opinion, any different from WOTC? Dressing it up as how it was characterized earlier in the thread doesn't make it any different.
From my perspective, they appear to have fairly similar prices for their products. Greed would be asking for more money. Releasing a book doesn't force anyone to buy it. At the end of the day they're both putting out products in order to make money to keep their business going.
I'd prefer to decide which best meets my needs as a customer than attempt to demonize one or the other in order to justify that decision.
If you look on the back of most of the hardcovers (the first printings are hit and miss, but the first printing of the Deities and Demi-goda and Fiend Folio both have them) there is a TSR product number above the ISBN, which have a number (on the Fiend Folio it was 394-52174-9TSR1200, Monster Manual II was xxxxx-OTSR1200, Monster Manual was xxxx-1TSR1200).The "1200" after TSR was the price. $12.00. Consistent across the non-DMG hardback through the early Eighties. The DMG went from $15 to $18 when they did the reprints with the new covers, though.
I'm glad you got yours on sale.
The price might have been $12. My copies don't have product numbers just items listed by name and prices in the back of the book and, it having been many moons ago, I don't recall for sure what the prices were. I just know the prices they listed in the back of the book. Between me and my brother we probably bought 3 or 4 of each book. If I have time I'll unbox some of the others and take a look... d@mn curiosity :)
*Edit* A quick look revealed product numbers for the MM, PHB and DMG I have out on the covers in tiny print. TSR 2009, 2010 and TSR 2011 respectively. I'll check the others later after graduation (we're kicking another class of seniors out the door tonight :D ). Interesting that the MM I have out does not have prices in the product listing and the DMG does not have a product listing. I think I have several printings out. I need to look for the others and check it out...
|
|
From my perspective, they appear to have fairly similar prices for their products. Greed would be asking for more money. Releasing a book doesn't force anyone to buy it. At the end of the day they're both putting out products in order to make money to keep their business going.
Again, its perspective. For you. many products at reasonable prices is ok, as its asking for more money is greedy. For me, many many products even at a reasonable price could be construed as greedy, as its the splat effect milkig more money with more products(not only, campaign, players, AP, module...but tales, miniatures, pawns, cards, etc...)
Just a matter of opinion. Its all how you dress it up, just like earlier in the thread.
|
|
]Arguing that WotC's behavior isn't greedy or that Paizo's is, are both valid arguments. Right or wrong, you can describe the behavior and make your case.
Claiming that it's hypocrisy to accuse one and not the other as long as their both in the business of making a profit and selling RPGs seems wrong to me. Aren't there, at least theoretically, greedy and not greedy ways of going about it?
THB greedy is good. It means if you make a profit,you ca domor. No profit, no expansion. I have to agree with the second part....which is why I chimed into the thread. Listen to folks reasons why paizo makes money, as per early in the thread, just strikes me was wrong as well.
Both wish profit- Paizo and WOTC. To think otherwise is foolish. As to your last question? No not really. Both wish profit by putting out products. Whether charging more or by producting many many products, its a matter of opinion which is greedy and which isn't.
Greedy: having or showing an intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth or power.
Technically for profit companies cannot be "greedy" the very purpose of their existence is to make money. In order to be "greedy" it presupposes that you are seeking something that you don't really need. Like a gluttonous person eating more food than they need or a power hungry tyrant imposing more taxes than the government needs.
If your purpose is to make money you can't really be accused of wanting to make money too much. A company can be unscrupulous, you can disapprove of how it goes about its business, but in my opinion it can't really be greedy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Curiosity drove my looking into the play-test. From it, and the discussion since the play-test, I started -- to my strong surprise -- to be interested in this revision of D&D and to find my attitude toward WotC changing. The new version seems like a desire to take some of the advances of 2e and 3.x D&D and work them into a simpler system than either one of them are on their own. The sensibilities seem to be Old School and simplicity, the old and the new -- and an overall repudiation of 4e. (Hey, they did come up with a few cool names and concepts, even if you hate the mechanics and the radicalization of the Realms.)
Since I play Pathfinder and Swords & Wizardry (and have dabbled in LotFP) I will most certainly give D&D a shot on its release. Whether I buy things from WotC or not is an open question, but if I did, Paizo still puts out so many things that I like, that even if my game dollars were divided, I can't imagine no longer sending Paizo my business.
|
|
If you look on the back of most of the hardcovers (the first printings are hit and miss, but the first printing of the Deities and Demi-goda and Fiend Folio both have them) there is a TSR product number above the ISBN, which have a number (on the Fiend Folio it was 394-52174-9TSR1200, Monster Manual II was xxxxx-OTSR1200, Monster Manual was xxxx-1TSR1200).The "1200" after TSR was the price. $12.00. Consistent across the non-DMG hardback through the early Eighties. The DMG went from $15 to $18 when they did the reprints with the new covers, though.
I'm glad you got yours on sale.
The price might have been $12. My copies don't have product numbers just items listed by name and prices in the back of the book and, it having been many moons ago, I don't recall for sure what the prices were. I just know the prices they listed in the back of the book. Between me and my brother we probably bought 3 or 4 of each book. If I have time I'll unbox some of the others and take a look... d@mn curiosity :)
*Edit* A quick look revealed product numbers for the MM, PHB and DMG I have out on the covers in tiny print. TSR 2009, 2010 and TSR 2011 respectively. I'll check the others later after graduation (we're kicking another class of seniors out the door tonight :D ). Interesting that the MM I have out does not have prices in the product listing and the DMG does not have a product listing. I think I have several printings out. I need to look for the others and check it out...
It isn't consistent from printing to printing, TSR wasn't exactly the most "professional" company when it came to uniformity in their product graphic design (see: a couple printings after the first printing of the Deities and Demigods with the Elric and Cthulhu stuff they gave thanks to Chaosium, even though the content they had a beef over was removed after the first printing). But, most copies of most hardbacks had the pricing built in to the TSR product number. Not all of my 1e hardbacks have the pricing on the back product number, one doesn't even have a product number at all, but all the ones that do have what was the retail price.
If WOTC releases new Dragonlance material I'll buy it, but that's about it. I'll stay with Pathfinder, I don't have the energy to learn yet another system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scott gets upset if you attack Wotc (or he perceives an attack). But he'll deny unto the day he dies that the marketing campaign for 4e and 4E Realms (including Bruce Cordell's ridiculous idiocy on Candlekeep followed by the same but through a sock puppet) really ticked off a bunch of "graybeards" (many of whom aren't "gray" nor have beards, having been born in the Seventies and early Eighties).
See, he has a problem with seeing things through anyone else's eyes. You know, that thing called "empathy". All he sees is that some people dislike the object of his fan love, and he feels compelled to defend everything they did from '07 to, well, ten minutes ago, with a ferocity I rarely see in a mother bear protecting her cubs.
Character assassination is beneath you.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scott gets upset if you attack Wotc (or he perceives an attack). But he'll deny unto the day he dies that the marketing campaign for 4e and 4E Realms (including Bruce Cordell's ridiculous idiocy on Candlekeep followed by the same but through a sock puppet) really ticked off a bunch of "graybeards" (many of whom aren't "gray" nor have beards, having been born in the Seventies and early Eighties).
I'm not really in the business of denying that some people got ticked at WotC's 4e roll-out. I don't, however, think that they had good reasons for getting ticked. I also think this probably isn't the thread to discuss that in.
See, he has a problem with seeing things through anyone else's eyes. You know, that thing called "empathy".
It's really a shame that you think this is the case.
All he sees is that some people dislike the object of his fan love, and he feels compelled to defend everything they did from '07 to, well, ten minutes ago, with a ferocity I rarely see in a mother bear protecting her cubs.
And it makes you upset to see someone defending something he enjoys, when you yourself don't enjoy that thing? I hope that's not the case, houstonderek.
(Sorta-related-almost-kinda, WotC just got some of my $ for giving me something I've been after for ages - Red Arrow, Black Shield is available again in PDF form on dndclassics.com! :D )
Sorta-related-almost-kinda also, despite my willingness to pay for the Next/5e core rulebooks, I was rather surprised to see that WotC sells their new adventure pdfs for $17.99 whereas Paizo's are $9.99. What's funny is, I was willing to pay $25(-ish) for Murder in Baldur's Gate and Legacy of the Crystal Shard, so I guess that's what a dead tree copy and single adventure DM screen are worth to me, or something.
|
|
Sorta-related-almost-kinda also, despite my willingness to pay for the Next/5e core rulebooks, I was rather surprised to see that WotC sells their new adventure pdfs for $17.99 whereas Paizo's are $9.99. What's funny is, I was willing to pay $25(-ish) for Murder in Baldur's Gate and Legacy of the Crystal Shard, so I guess that's what a dead tree copy and single adventure DM screen are worth to me, or something.
I suggest that you relook at paizo's again. Paizo's adventures have changed PDF prices. The old ones are $9.99. The newer PDF's are $17.99, same as WOTC.
http://paizo.com/products/btpy8yvy?Pathfinder-Module-The-Dragons-Demand
Thatcher's Bloody Britain!!
*sigh*
Thanks Carmachu, I stand corrected; I suppose I just demonstrated that I'm not the most loyal Paizo customer out there, didn't I?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thatcher's Bloody Britain!!
*sigh*
Thanks Carmachu, I stand corrected; I suppose I just demonstrated that I'm not the most loyal Paizo customer out there, didn't I?
Heh. To be fair, they only just changed, due to doubling the size of the Pathfinder Modules books and moving to one every second month. It was easy to miss :)
I also have to add that those prices mean nothing at all to me, without page counts included.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scott gets upset if you attack Wotc (or he perceives an attack). But he'll deny unto the day he dies that the marketing campaign for 4e and 4E Realms (including Bruce Cordell's ridiculous idiocy on Candlekeep followed by the same but through a sock puppet) really ticked off a bunch of "graybeards" (many of whom aren't "gray" nor have beards, having been born in the Seventies and early Eighties).
See, he has a problem with seeing things through anyone else's eyes. You know, that thing called "empathy". All he sees is that some people dislike the object of his fan love, and he feels compelled to defend everything they did from '07 to, well, ten minutes ago, with a ferocity I rarely see in a mother bear protecting her cubs.
I've actually never seen Scott do much outside of trying to break down things and separate them between what actually happened what people conjured in their heads happened.
I didn't like 4th edition at first. The REALMS changes bothered me and a few other things got under my skin and I retreated to Pathfinder like a great many people did.
As I grew older and stopped having a chance to really play ANYTHING as often as I would have liked, I stopped and started looking into games again. I read forums more and even started reading a lot of things that Scott posted and found myself agreeing and self reflecting a good deal about what I was upset about. Books that I bought being obsolete? They're never obsolete. You can keep playing.
Forgotten Realms going through a meat grinder? Well ... yeah a LOT changed against people's will but it's not the first time this has happened. Time of Troubles was a fairly big shake up but since I came in AFTER that, I didn't really care. Same for people that came in AFTER FR switched to 4th and I found some perspective and stopped even caring about the gods that did or did not die. Actually a lot of the FR gods are boring to me anyway so ... eh?
I hated how much hassle spellcasters were and I started looking at 4th edition and realized ... I actually LIKE this now. Its easier. Its fun. I honestly couldn't understand what bothered me about it other than it was different.
Scott has empathy. I think he understands people fairly well enough to call them out on acting silly for being upset about things that might not have gone down the way they constantly tell themselves it did. He defends something he enjoys and I'm happy he does. He's one of the voices of reason I've come to find entertaining on here when I have to slog through comments like this that try to paint him or ANYONE in an unjustly negative light just because they disagree.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Character assassination is beneath you.Scott gets upset if you attack Wotc (or he perceives an attack). But he'll deny unto the day he dies that the marketing campaign for 4e and 4E Realms (including Bruce Cordell's ridiculous idiocy on Candlekeep followed by the same but through a sock puppet) really ticked off a bunch of "graybeards" (many of whom aren't "gray" nor have beards, having been born in the Seventies and early Eighties).
See, he has a problem with seeing things through anyone else's eyes. You know, that thing called "empathy". All he sees is that some people dislike the object of his fan love, and he feels compelled to defend everything they did from '07 to, well, ten minutes ago, with a ferocity I rarely see in a mother bear protecting her cubs.
Dude, there is nothing inaccurate in anything I said.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scott gets upset if you attack Wotc (or he perceives an attack). But he'll deny unto the day he dies that the marketing campaign for 4e and 4E Realms (including Bruce Cordell's ridiculous idiocy on Candlekeep followed by the same but through a sock puppet) really ticked off a bunch of "graybeards" (many of whom aren't "gray" nor have beards, having been born in the Seventies and early Eighties).I'm not really in the business of denying that some people got ticked at WotC's 4e roll-out. I don't, however, think that they had good reasons for getting ticked. I also think this probably isn't the thread to discuss that in.
See, he has a problem with seeing things through anyone else's eyes. You know, that thing called "empathy".It's really a shame that you think this is the case.
All he sees is that some people dislike the object of his fan love, and he feels compelled to defend everything they did from '07 to, well, ten minutes ago, with a ferocity I rarely see in a mother bear protecting her cubs.And it makes you upset to see someone defending something he enjoys, when you yourself don't enjoy that thing? I hope that's not the case, houstonderek.
Would you like me to copy and paste specific examples of you telling people they were "wrong" about how they felt about the marketing campaign? It might take me a while to go through the few thousand posts you've made to find the hundred or so examples during the edition wars, but they're there. Or how they were "wrong" about why they didn't like something about 4e?
You were defending what you like. Nothing wrong with that. Ignoring that the WotC marketing campaign might have pissed some people off, dismissing people that cited specific examples, and defending some of the employees (and willfully ignoring Chris Perkins rather insulting comments in the interview for 4E realms directed at people complaining about the changes in the realms, and probably not even knowing Cordell, as himself, then through a sock puppet, went on Candlekeep and insulted a bunch of people there) was just, well, it was amazing to watch. You went out of your way to invalidate anyone's negative feelings about that time.
Paizo is nice enough to collect all of our posts under our profile names. I'm off today, so I have the time between laundry and housecleaning, so just say the word and I will.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the deal. No one has to buy anything. Anyone can dislike anything for whatever reason they want. And WotC ticked a lot of people off, for whatever reason. The people that felt like WotC was directly insulting them have every right to never spend another dime with them.
Scott, you can argue about the merits of 4e, how it isn't a video game, and how sacred cows shouldn't be sacred, that's fine. But when you try to tell people they're "wrong" for feeling WotC insulted them, or that they didn't handle a lot of things about 4e and the 4e Realms (and, trust me, you're, what, twenty-six now I think?) some people have been a fan of a thing and have loved a game called "D&D" for longer than you've been born, so, maybe, you should take a moment and realize you're not the only one who loves D&D. Some of us don't think Hasbro is a good influence on WotC, wish Hasbro never bought WotC, and think a lot of the things WotC does is to please corporate suits who have zero clue about role playing games. We see the second coming of Lorraine Williams (you were young then, doubt you really understand what that era was like) but with more money to prevent to collapse that she caused at TSR. But we do get the same vibe that we got from her version of TSR, that someone who didn't understand us is actually in charge.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scott gets upset if you attack Wotc (or he perceives an attack). But he'll deny unto the day he dies that the marketing campaign for 4e and 4E Realms (including Bruce Cordell's ridiculous idiocy on Candlekeep followed by the same but through a sock puppet) really ticked off a bunch of "graybeards" (many of whom aren't "gray" nor have beards, having been born in the Seventies and early Eighties).
See, he has a problem with seeing things through anyone else's eyes. You know, that thing called "empathy". All he sees is that some people dislike the object of his fan love, and he feels compelled to defend everything they did from '07 to, well, ten minutes ago, with a ferocity I rarely see in a mother bear protecting her cubs.
I've actually never seen Scott do much outside of trying to break down things and separate them between what actually happened what people conjured in their heads happened.
The problem is, unless Scott is an employee of WotC, he doesn't know either. And, sorry, but I guess you have to be of a certain age, and have lived before the internet was a thing, to understand how insulting and dismissive of anyone "old" the marketing and a lot of the comments made by WotC employees were. And, if you weren't on Candlekeep, you probably have no idea about that particular debacle.
Dude, there is nothing inaccurate in anything I said.
From your point of view. In any event, that isn't really the point. The point is that you replied to a post about WotC with a post about Scott. Pretty much the epitome of an Ad Hominem.
I don't know if you were just pissed off at Scott, or had a bad day (trust me, I've been there), but your post made it personal -- and I sincerely believe that you're better than that.
|
|
Do we really need a pile of posts arguing about Scott's behavior back in the edition wars?
Please.
We don't. I'd really rather not. But if he's going to insist he wasn't doing it...
If you really don't want to see it, just tell him "Yes, Scott, you were dismissive of the legit observations not just the really out in left field ones (and there were a lot of those, I am not denying that at all).
|
|
Dude, there is nothing inaccurate in anything I said.From your point of view. In any event, that isn't really the point. The point is that you replied to a post about WotC with a post about Scott. Pretty much the epitome of an Ad Hominem.
I don't know if you were just pissed off at Scott, or had a bad day (trust me, I've been there), but your post made it personal -- and I sincerely believe that you're better than that.
It isn't personal. I'm sure Scott is a perfectly reasonable human being in the real world. He just is way too dismissive of some actually legitimate feelings/concerns/dislike for Hasbro's influence on WotC for my tastes.
The problem is, unless Scott is an employee of WotC, he doesn't know either. And, sorry, but I guess you have to be of a certain age, and have lived before the internet was a thing, to understand how insulting and dismissive of anyone "old" the marketing and a lot of the comments made by WotC employees were. And, if you weren't on Candlekeep, you probably have no idea about that particular debacle.
I wasn't on Candlekeep, and can't comment on what did or did not happen there.
WotC did many things I didn't like in the 4E era. Knee-jerk pulling of PDFs. The GSL. Core elements missing form the core. Taking LFR behind the woodshed. Botching the digital offerings plan. But the marketing?
As someone who has been playing D&D since the eighties, I really didn't find WotC's 4E marketing insulting or dismissive. At most it was tone-deaf. That's just my opinion, of course, but that's all the whole kerfuffle was -- a matter of opinion. The point is that Scott isn't the only one who doesn't share your point-of-view.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't personal. I'm sure Scott is a perfectly reasonable human being in the real world. He just is way too dismissive of some actually legitimate feelings/concerns/dislike for Hasbro's influence on WotC for my tastes.
It seemed rather personal to me. I can't speak for Scott, of course. The whole thing just seemed like a truck out of left field. But I've probably said too much as it is.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is, unless Scott is an employee of WotC, he doesn't know either.
TBH, at first (during the early days of the edition wars) I did think that Scott was a Wotc employee.
I agree with HD's assessment because it's the truth - that being said I hope we don't start another war with this new game.
I think people are very passionate about what we like, our politics, beliefs, our hobbies - Scott and I have butted head several times and I don't like his views on pretty much...everything. But I do think (exposing myself to attack and some regrets) that Scott is an intelligent guy - who I never agree with. Ever.
I was frustrated by the lack of empathy that many people showed who just didn't "get it" during that time - but hopefully that's all in the past. Maybe with this version of the game the pro 4e crowd will better understand some of us holdouts from previous editions and our frustrations at the divisive ad campaign that was launched at the older edition players. I agree with HD, I don't think he's being mean or vindictive with his last few points, just setting the record straight.
With that - lets move on, the past is the past - over here we are all gamers who love our games (whatever version). Let's see what we can do to support our hobby and each other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With that - lets move on, the past is the past - over here we are all gamers who love our games (whatever version). Let's see what we can do to support our hobby and each other.
Excellent suggestion. For my part, I'm sorry for stirring the pot.
With that - lets move on, the past is the past - over here we are all gamers who love our games (whatever version). Let's see what we can do to support our hobby and each other.Excellent suggestion. For my part, I'm sorry for stirring the pot.
Yeah, there's no reason (well, other than this being the Internet) why we can't discuss things here without it getting personal :) We can like different things, and have different requirements in what we want out of a game - or a game company.
Luckily, there are choices available so we can find the ones that fit us, and I hope we continue to see different companies doing things different ways - some pushing ahead and reinventing their games to keep them fresh and attract new customers, while others work on what they have and try to improve it rather than replace it. That way everyone has a chance to get what they want - it really doesn't matter if we all end up wanting different products, I'd be horrified if we were all a bunch of clones that enjoyed and wanted the exact same thing.
We should be comparing notes about those differences, and seeing if we can learn from one another and pick up new ideas. Not using them to make us vs them arguments.
|
|
I've said my piece.
As to the OP, sure, I'll give it a shot, but my daughter and my soon to be new family (getting married this summer) need my money more than WotC does, so I'll probably eventually buy the core when I can if I like it and not much else, mostly because I'm not young and single any more and can't indulge in my hobby buying like I could when I was single and not responsible for anyone other than myself. Heck, I have to borrow most of the Pathfinder books when I build a character since I only own the core book (and that was a gift).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...my daughter and my soon to be new family (getting married this summer)...
Congratulations. :)
But I do think (exposing myself to attack and some regrets) that Scott is an intelligent guy - who I never agree with. Ever.
It'll happen one day when you least expect it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Derek, I don't need to be past a certain age to know that everyone, no matter their age, can let their emotions cloud judgment.
Its FANTASTIC people love Pathfinder.
Its FANTASTIC people love 4e.
I come onto these forums and, duh, it's usually how great Pathfinder is and that's awesome. They've really created something here the fans love.
I go and look at the PA forums and it's how great 4e is and that's awesome!
I'm only 31 so I might not be a graybeard (I do have white in my scruff dammit >_< ) but I know better than to claim someone lacks "empathy" just because he doesn't agree with why people got upset and try to explain things another way.
And I do believe people's emotions can be WRONG. I can't even look at politics without getting a little sick of how fear mongering works for both sides and how this side blames that side and how we're ruining everything with blah blah blah.
Upset they don't want your business anymore and tell people they're not worth their time? Yeah that sucks and is worth emotion. But when people got upset at that cartoon back in the day when 4e came out about the troll posting? Nope ... not seeing it.
I don't post a lot and mostly lurk. But when I saw what you said about him it just bothered me. I don't even talk to the guy but I respect him enough to at least say his opinions have never come off as anything but sensible, or at least what I've READ of his (won't say he doesn't have posts where he kicks kittens and curb stomps halflings).
Anyway ... I'll be done with this too. Just had to say my peace.
As for the ACTUAL topic, I've been out of the game long enough to try picking this up. I am looking for something more light weight in complexity. I personally loved 4e's "everyone gets cool stuff" mentality but as hard as it is for me to play now, I'll give Next a solid go and try and get into some more PBP's to get my fix.
|
|
The only people I need to support my current game are the people I actually play with. We still play Star Frontiers now and then for Zebulon's sake!
The internet has, for good and bad, given everyone's opinions a wide audience. Those who fail see that others may hold a differing opinion are always going to cause issues.
So in my opinion...
If I was to meet some of the posters in RL to play a TTRPG they would be:
1e = houstonderek
2e = digitalelf
PF = Paizo staff
4e = Scott Betts
Why, because I think these all of these people LOVE there chosen favorite game. And that in my opinion is ALL you need to have a wickedly fun time with ANY TTRPG.
Ladies and Gentlemen it pleases me to say we all seem to be arguing one central commonly aligned point... Pen & Paper RPG's are awesome!
Although it does seem at times we are arguing that Blue is better than Green... ;)
For a long time now, 2+ years, my gaming group (of 20+ years in some cases) disbanded for the usual reasons like family, moving out of state, careers, etc.
I tried to keep up with pbp and ultimately wanted to GM my own separate pbp. The tactical aspect of 3.5/Pathfinder kills it for me. Even my last few home campaigns like RotR and Kingmaker fizzled due to my getting burned out stopping to map out every room, use counters, dry erase, repeat.
I want a simpler system where tactical minis are optional. I like maps and minis, but Id rather use it for the epic fights with Dragons or BBEGs, etc.
If D&D Next is tactical light with choices like 3.5/Pathfinder in other areas, I would give it a go with a pbp and get right back into the hobby. There also needs to be rich module support.
If "Pathfinder Next" is like this, or they made a PF light, I'd also return to the hobby and give WotC a flipoff instead (I'm really not a fan of the corporate side of D&D) despite the fact that I miss 1e/2e dearly.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
despite the fact that I miss 1e/2e dearly.
Given you can buy both these core products new (or really cheap 2nd hand - and in some case in better nick than any 4e/PF book) why don't you just get a group together and play either 1e/2e?
I do not understand the idea that if it isn't current it isn't playable?*
I give everyone my word that the CIA or FBI will not (at the urging of Hasbro of course) arrest you for playing an out of print game. And you can quote me.
*I am assuming that games are face to face. Perhaps wrongly.