Now it might just be because I am only really watching form here and the WotC boards, but this edition change over seems a lot friendlier to me.
we tired
wars r hard
we all warred out
|
People have their favourite system still. There isn't a chance it will disapear forever, like there was when 4th ed came out.
It was the license that WotC used at the time that saw the rise of pathfinder. If that license had been more flexible, there's a better than even chance Paizo would have moved over to writing adventures for 4th ed and Pathfinder never would have happened.
This time, everyone wins.
Good for the industry.
Cheers
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It looks to me, from the boards I frequent, some people are still fighting the previous edition war.
I don't often say stuff like this, but lets not go any further down the routes that are openning before us.
Rather can I ask, has anyone seen much in the way of edition warring over 5th?
I don't often say stuff like this, but lets not go any further down the routes that are openning before us.
Rather can I ask, has anyone seen much in the way of edition warring over 5th?
From my perspective, yes and lots of it during the playtest process. Basically people were of the assumption that if.they were vocal enough about a particular topic chances it might get changed. For example, lets take the GWF debate (or damage on a miss). This particular mechanic made its way from 4e's at-will power Reaping Strike and into a fighter class themecalled Reaper. It continued in various features and abilities throughout the ENTIRE playtest and Mearls statement regarding it was (it received mostly positive reviews). Towards the end, after the final packet was released in Oct. 2013 the sheer amount of threads started, argued in, and then closed (by which were started by a handful of posters) had reached ridiculous levels. And, the basic rules are released and GWF is changed to something else.
That's just one specific example about the new e-war. Other topics ranged from "apprentice levels", Hit Die healing, no Warlords and non-magical healing, DM-may-I / DM fiat complications, player entitlement, 4e's supposed All-Core approach, magical item stores, player agency and DM empowerment, and the Stormwind Fallacy.
These topics were constantly being argued over among other non-game related stuff like Copyright BS, OGL shennanigans, 3PP support, video game analogies, marketing and sales, who's making more, what dependant on on-line tools, how digital is either good or bad and why, pirating, and the all important "feel" of the game.
Now that the rules are out, there's not much to argue about now besides what they could've done better or worse or how things will work in the future.
|
I think there was less expectation, among the players, that 5E would be similar to any previous edition.
Therefore, no reason for upset, if and when things are found to have changed.
I've run adventures written for Moldvay B/X, Mentzer BECMI, Gygax AD&D, and Cook 2ndEd, in a variety of other editions up to 3.5, without much conversion needed.
A lot of people were expecting 4E to be a revision and clarification of 3.5, incorporating lessons learned since 2000. The rules had been recompiled in the Rules Compendium, several classes had been introduced in later books, to bridge the perceived power discrepancy between martial and caster PCs. When hearing a new edition was in the works, plenty of people believed they'd be getting that info in a new set of core books.
Was that a reasonable belief? You can argue yes or no on that. (Please don't)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there was less expectation, among the players, that 5E would be similar to any previous edition.
Therefore, no reason for upset, if and when things are found to have changed.I've run adventures written for Moldvay B/X, Mentzer BECMI, Gygax AD&D, and Cook 2ndEd, in a variety of other editions up to 3.5, without much conversion needed.
A lot of people were expecting 4E to be a revision and clarification of 3.5, incorporating lessons learned since 2000. The rules had been recompiled in the Rules Compendium, several classes had been introduced in later books, to bridge the perceived power discrepancy between martial and caster PCs. When hearing a new edition was in the works, plenty of people believed they'd be getting that info in a new set of core books.Was that a reasonable belief? You can argue yes or no on that. (Please don't)
Yeah, I heard a lot of that too. Not really sure where the notion came from but LOTS of people were pointing to the Star Wars: Saga rules and Tome of Battle as the building blocks for 4e and I don't refute they drew inspiration from those sourcebooks, a significant portion of the game changed that didn't look like that. I blame the lack of charts and color-coded boxes myself.
i looked thru DnD at the bookstore the other day, not a fan myself
The same thing could be said about 3.5 fans about Wotc dropping that edition as well.Other than that they weren't a very, very small minority.
I don't think either side is a small minority as much as some want to present it on these boards.
Really? As I said, I haven't seen it. I take it you *have* seen a large number of bitter 4E fans? (Honestly asking - I have not seen it.)
|
Really? As I said, I haven't seen it. I take it you *have* seen a large number of bitter 4E fans? (Honestly asking - I have not seen it.)
I have seen a few unhappy fans about 4E. None very bitter. I guess I must hang out with more socially well adjusted mature fans of the hobby. The same way where I meet a handful of fans who were unhappy about 3.5 being cancelled. It has nothing do with Wotc 4E advertising campaign. Or what they did to FR. Or for having to pay for new material. Again maybe because the gamers I hang out are again well adjusted social individuals who have better things to do then be bitter about rpgs or the companies that make them.
I've seen a lot of bitter 3.5 fans. Most of them play pathfinder now and will not touch anything by WOTC. With 5th edition, that may change. We shall see.
|
|
In my neck of the woods their still is a decent amount of fans that play 3.5 and will not switch to any other edition. To the point where thw owner of the LGS that I buy books from just does not want to deal with them anymore. After a point inly so many times one can tell a person that 3.5. no matter how one wants it to be will not be supported. They refuse to buy the PF core. Or use the online SRD or even a app.
|
|
"Bitter" is probably farther than I'd go.
I'd say I saw far more 3.5 fans who were unhappy with the change and didn't want to move to 4E than with any other change, including this one.
The irony here is that the same stuff 3.5 and Pathfinder fans complain about with the rules is that for the most part 4E fixed. Maybe not in the way they wanted but it did. Now we still see the same people argue about the same flaws real or not with the rules over and over again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen a lot of bitter 3.5 fans. Most of them play pathfinder now and will not touch anything by WOTC. With 5th edition, that may change. We shall see.
This I would agree with. Of course, when 4th edition came around, I wasn't on any D&D boards (fansite or official), and this is really the only one I frequent now. But I have seen more people "bitter" about the end of 3rd edition and intro to 4th edition than I have seen people "bitter" about the end of 4th edition and intro to 5th edition.
Pathfinder only exists because people weren't wanting to let go. Paizo had been debating on converting to 4th edition, but WotC were dragging their feet so they went to Mr Jacobs and got his revision (house rules) and decided to publish that. If WotC would have gotten off their ass, Paizo's APs could have been for 4th edition, and all the 3rd edition fans (which there are a large number on this site dedicated to a revised 3.5) would be SoL on getting new books and content.
The rollout of 5th edition seems to be a lot smoother than 4th edition's. I have seen a lot of vitriol towards 5th edition on these boards, mainly because it was made by WotC, and even more because they don't have pdfs or any form of digital "printing" (yet).
|
|
I have seen a lot of vitriol towards 5th edition on these boards, mainly because it was made by WotC, and even more because they don't have pdfs or any form of digital "printing" (yet).
Even if they had PDFs or digital printing their would still be vitriol thrown there way. Gamers use any and every excuse to edition wars
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did someone call me? RAWR!
Even if they had PDFs or digital printing their would still be vitriol thrown there way. Gamers use any and every excuse to edition wars
I like 5th edition and will happily play it...for now. That said, WotC's current position on PDFs of 5E is comically moronic, and if it doesn't change, I probably won't stick around.
Are we actually having an edition war in a thread about why there has been less edition warring?
At the very worst, you have to admit that this is an excellent study in contrast between the edition wars of yore (still raging seven years after they started) and the current "edition wars" which largely seem non-existent despite 5e's reported popularity.
I liked 4E, and was an avid supporter. Eventually WotC's bungling drove me away. From my point-of-view, that's simply what happened.
P.S. The original GSL was a bigger trap that the Pathfinder crossbow. I truly don't understand how anyone who was paying attention could deny that with a straight face.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Tried to calm down thread before it turns into 4e edition war.*
You had one job ben, one job.