TheRPGSite

Anecdotal evidence suggests that Pathfinder has been outselling D&D over the past year. Presumably, D&D Next will take back the #1 spot when it is released but what will happen in the medium- to long-term? Will Pathfinder players migrate to D&D Next, leaving Pathfinder on the glide-path to the status of "once popular but no longer a serious contender"? Or will Paizo put up a fight, maybe release a second edition in an attempt to continue giving Wizards a run for their money?

Quote from: Dodger;526815Anecdotal evidence suggests that Pathfinder has been outselling D&D over the past year. Presumably, D&D Next will take back the #1 spot when it is released but what will happen in the medium- to long-term? Will Pathfinder players migrate to D&D Next, leaving Pathfinder on the glide-path to the status of "once popular but no longer a serious contender"? Or will Paizo put up a fight, maybe release a second edition in an attempt to continue giving Wizards a run for their money?

I think Pathfinder will drop a bit.  It won't go away, but it will drop as part of their following goes to 5e.  I know this is largely anecdotal, but I've heard a lot of people who say they don't like 4e is because they like some randomization in their games (like hit points) and don't like being forced to spend 95% of your time maneuvering your mini on a battlemap.

And despite what you might think after listening to the 4venger crowd cry and whine, I'm sure a lot of 4e players will move on to 5e because it's the newest edition and might (GASP!) even be a more fun edition to play than 4e was for them.  If you believe what you hear on the internet forums, the 4e players all refuse to even look at 5e and will protest it.  I suspect the reality is that most 4e fans (really, fans of any edition) aren't that emotionally invested and will want to try out a new game.

The current edition of D&D will always be popular, and if they can increase their gamer base by allowing players of previous editions to play how they want to play rather than be forced to play a certain way they don't like, they will be #1 again.

Hard to say since D&D Next isn't developed enough yet to know how many people like it.

PF would be doing their players a disservice if they released a 2nd ed just to get new core books to the market. A new edition of a system should be desired by the player base before going into development.

Pathfinder is considered evergreen by a lot of people because it is based on the OGL. That alone is enough to win over those who have decided to get off of the edition treadmill.

I'm hoping for a PF 2 myself, not to play, but just for the lulz.

Quote from: Dodger;526815Anecdotal evidence suggests that Pathfinder has been outselling D&D over the past year. Presumably, D&D Next will take back the #1 spot when it is released but what will happen in the medium- to long-term? Will Pathfinder players migrate to D&D Next, leaving Pathfinder on the glide-path to the status of "once popular but no longer a serious contender"? Or will Paizo put up a fight, maybe release a second edition in an attempt to continue giving Wizards a run for their money?

Well as an actual person of the group you're talking about Pathfinder will be fine because their focus are Adventure Paths and other peripherals, the core rpg books are incidental to their success. Heck, the reason I got into the game is for the anti treadmill model they employ.

Personally I'll get 5e right along with Pathfinder if it proves to be a fun and solid game that allows me to do like I do with Fantasy Craft but with the support and playerbase network Dnd has just because it's Dnd.

5e has far more problems than the 4e launch.  

The ludicrous promise that 5e will appeal to all edition fans is going to evaporate once the public playtest arrives, regardless if 5e is a good game or not.

The OSR and Pathfinder have developed from just an edition fanbase to a community focused on their own game. It is only a matter of time before 4e gets its own retroclone and thus its own community.

So who is the potential fanbase of 5e?

Certainly not 1e/2e fans. Castles & Crusades is essentially AD&D 2.5, but that was viewed as way too much heresy for the OSR. There is no way that 5e is going to be more OSR orthodox than C&C.

Certainly not 3e fans. They have Pathfinder. There is no way that 5e can "out-3e" and give 3e fans more of what they enjoy than Pathfinder.

Certainly not 4e fans. WotC is counting on RPGA and organized play to transition players into 5e. This may work, but just as many 3e fans stayed with 3e in 2008, its logical than most 4e fans will stick with 4e, especially when 3PP publishers reach out to them.

As much as I don't like Pathfinder, Paizo is a smart company which has done a great job appealing to the needs of their customers. I am quite sure they are not going to simply let WotC stop their momentum.

So 5e has to appeal to people unattached to any edition and those who simply play the current D&D.

Not a great mid-term situation.

Quote from: Dodger;526815Anecdotal evidence suggests that Pathfinder has been outselling D&D over the past year. Presumably, D&D Next will take back the #1 spot when it is released but what will happen in the medium- to long-term? Will Pathfinder players migrate to D&D Next, leaving Pathfinder on the glide-path to the status of "once popular but no longer a serious contender"? Or will Paizo put up a fight, maybe release a second edition in an attempt to continue giving Wizards a run for their money?

Impossible to tell right now. It'll really depend on the details of how the D&D Next game comes together and what lasting effect it has on its future fandom, which will shape its legacy from there, and how that compares to Pathfinder's (3.X) niche from there.

I'll say this though: WotC would do well to think seriously of the way its game compares to the 3.X experience, and emphasize what's different about it in a good light. I'm thinking of things like quick character gen, intuitive, organic character development instead of planning your levels in advance to get the PrC you want, good monster stat blocks you can use easily at the game table, and so on.

4e failed in this in part because it assumed the use of the online tools, so it kept adding errata and options and classes and paragon paths and all that shit on top of each other, thereby making it a very complex game to manage if you did NOT use the online tools, or if some of your players did use them while others did not, turning the whole "balance" (lul) thing into a logical nightmare from there.

There are lessons to learn here and opportunities to seize. Whether WotC has the balls to cut to umbilical cord on its past failures remains to be seen.

Quote from: Spinachcat;5268575e has far more problems than the 4e launch.  

The ludicrous promise that 5e will appeal to all edition fans is going to evaporate once the public playtest arrives, regardless if 5e is a good game or not.

The OSR and Pathfinder have developed from just an edition fanbase to a community focused on their own game. It is only a matter of time before 4e gets its own retroclone and thus its own community.

So who is the potential fanbase of 5e?

Certainly not 1e/2e fans. Castles & Crusades is essentially AD&D 2.5, but that was viewed as way too much heresy for the OSR. There is no way that 5e is going to be more OSR orthodox than C&C.

Certainly not 3e fans. They have Pathfinder. There is no way that 5e can "out-3e" and give 3e fans more of what they enjoy than Pathfinder.

Certainly not 4e fans. WotC is counting on RPGA and organized play to transition players into 5e. This may work, but just as many 3e fans stayed with 3e in 2008, its logical than most 4e fans will stick with 4e, especially when 3PP publishers reach out to them.

As much as I don't like Pathfinder, Paizo is a smart company which has done a great job appealing to the needs of their customers. I am quite sure they are not going to simply let WotC stop their momentum.

So 5e has to appeal to people unattached to any edition and those who simply play the current D&D.

Not a great mid-term situation.

5e seems to have made you much more bitter than ever before.

Quote from: Mistwell;5268715e seems to have made you much more bitter than ever before.

I don't know his/her previous history beyond today and yesterday but he/she seems straightforward for a 4e fan. But he/she doesn't seem for real bitter to me beyond the obvious 4venger hyperbole and view that if it's not 4e it's wrong shtick.

Quote from: Marleycat;526880I don't know his/her previous history beyond today and yesterday but he/she seems straightforward for a 4e fan. But he/she doesn't seem for real bitter to me beyond the obvious 4venger hyperbole and view that if it's not 4e it's wrong shtick.

Yeah, that's an argument I never really understood because it was the same argument that was made when 3e was announced, and the same when 4e was announced.  I.e., "They're screwing their existing customers who like the current edition out now and therefore will stick with it, so who are they tying to bring in?"

Well, plenty of people played 3e.  And plenty of people play 4e.  Just like there will be plenty of people who will play 5e.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;526886Well, plenty of people played 3e.  And plenty of people play 4e.  Just like there will be plenty of people who will play 5e.

This.  Seriously I'm confused why 4e players are acting so butthurt over a simple edition change.  Heck, Wotc is even using kid gloves for once.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;526886Well, plenty of people played 3e.  And plenty of people play 4e.  Just like there will be plenty of people who will play 5e.

The difference being that 3e was probably the most played game in the hobby at its peak. 4e, not so much. If the trend continues with 5e I don't see that Spin's claims are really that preposterous.  I also don't think he's bitter, Calling him that is a cop out,  from a known WoTC fanboy.

Quote from: Marleycat;526905This.  Seriously I'm confused why 4e players are acting so butthurt over a simple edition change.  Heck, Wotc is even using kid gloves for once.

Take a look at this forum back when 4e was announced there was every bit as much asspain then.

Quote from: Spinachcat;5268575e has far more problems than the 4e launch.  

The ludicrous promise that 5e will appeal to all edition fans is going to evaporate once the public playtest arrives, regardless if 5e is a good game or not.

The OSR and Pathfinder have developed from just an edition fanbase to a community focused on their own game. It is only a matter of time before 4e gets its own retroclone and thus its own community.

So who is the potential fanbase of 5e?

Certainly not 1e/2e fans. Castles & Crusades is essentially AD&D 2.5, but that was viewed as way too much heresy for the OSR. There is no way that 5e is going to be more OSR orthodox than C&C.

Certainly not 3e fans. They have Pathfinder. There is no way that 5e can "out-3e" and give 3e fans more of what they enjoy than Pathfinder.

Certainly not 4e fans. WotC is counting on RPGA and organized play to transition players into 5e. This may work, but just as many 3e fans stayed with 3e in 2008, its logical than most 4e fans will stick with 4e, especially when 3PP publishers reach out to them.

As much as I don't like Pathfinder, Paizo is a smart company which has done a great job appealing to the needs of their customers. I am quite sure they are not going to simply let WotC stop their momentum.

So 5e has to appeal to people unattached to any edition and those who simply play the current D&D.

Not a great mid-term situation.

I am a 5e fan. I want a gridless, currently supported, official Dungeons and Dragons. 5e is for me.

Quote from: Marleycat;526880I don't know his/her previous history beyond today...

Then you don't have the knowledge necessary to comment on a comparison of prior levels of bitterness to current levels for that particular person, do you?

It was not a generic comment about 4e fans.  I am referring just to SpinachCat.

If 5e can address some of the generally acknowledged problems of 3e (prep time, general top-heaviness & overflow of modifiers and modifier types, and yeah, spellcaster power) without totally throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it stands a good chance of peeling off a chunk of people who enjoyed 3e.

The thing about Pathfinder is that, whatever other improvements it brings to the table, it doesn't address that stuff much and it would be nice to see some other take on the D&D game.

I'd be happy to see a game that does some of what 3e does, and simplifies other stuff more towards the BECMI direction. I think there's room for a good game that can sit somewhere in the middle between 1e and 3e. I don't buy that the preferences of all D&D players are perfectly addressed by the existing editions of the game. That's just bloggers talking.

Whether they can make it commercially successful by their standards is a whole another question.

Quote from: Mistwell;5268715e seems to have made you much more bitter than ever before.

Its not a question of bitterness. It's a look at realities of the existing marketplace. Not the hopeful-to-exist marketplace.

When 3e was launched, it was WotC vs. White Wolf for market share. They were both selling extremely different games to often different audiences.

TSR was dead, the online AD&D community was in its infancy. The market was wide open for a strong fantasy game with the D&D name. Also, it was pre-WoW.

When 4e was launched, it was WotC vs. 3e vs. WoW. The market was flooded with D20 material and 1e/2e/3e had strong online communities. And WoW was the dominant fantasy game play experience, even for many RPGers.

When 5e launches, it will be WotC vs. Paizo vs. OSR vs. WoW. Unlike White Wolf, Paizo is selling the same genre as WotC. It's Class/Level/Fantasy vs. Class/Level/Fantasy for market share. Also take this into account: Paizo is a smarter, more agile and more aggressive company than WW was in 1999.

Regardless of how good 5e may be, I see serious trouble for WotC from a business perspective.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;526886Well, plenty of people played 3e.  And plenty of people play 4e.  Just like there will be plenty of people who will play 5e.

Except there aren't "plenty of people" left in the hobby. And there is a global recession which has seriously chopped into discretionary spending.

It is a common story that people bought 4e's core books, found the game "too different" from their current home game and then returned back to their previous edition. After being "burned" by WotC, it is quite likely that many groups will decide to skip spending $60-$100 to try a new edition and just keep playing whatever edition they currently play.

There is no economic data that says 2013-2014 will be notably better than 2012. Instead, the data is pointing to a decrease in consumer confidence and that spills over to discretionary spending.

Quote from: Spinachcat;526960When 3e was launched, it was WotC vs. White Wolf for market share. They were both selling extremely different games to often different audiences.

TSR was dead, the online AD&D community was in its infancy. The market was wide open for a strong fantasy game with the D&D name. Also, it was pre-WoW..

And yet, 3e was a radical shift from AD&D 2e, and if a lot of the same logic being used by 4e fans is true*, then 3e would have fallen on its face.  It didn't.  It went on to become one of the most popular editions.


*that being, "why are they doing such a major change when 2e is awesome and I love it, and it's like they're firing all their current customers in hoping on making up the difference in brand new ones which will never work......."

Quote from: Spinachcat;526960When 3e was launched, it was WotC vs. White Wolf for market share. They were both selling extremely different games to often different audiences.

TSR was dead, the online AD&D community was in its infancy. The market was wide open for a strong fantasy game with the D&D name. Also, it was pre-WoW.

At the time, how much of a factor were video games like Diablo and Everquest?

Quote from: Spinachcat;526960When 5e launches, it will be WotC vs. Paizo vs. OSR vs. WoW. Unlike White Wolf, Paizo is selling the same genre as WotC. It's Class/Level/Fantasy vs. Class/Level/Fantasy for market share. Also take this into account: Paizo is a smarter, more agile and more aggressive company than WW was in 1999.

 
(http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff507/BSJ17/Populous.jpg)
 
(Sorry, that just reminded me so much of Populous).
 
I'm actually playing Pathfinder currently (GM preference) as well as 3.5 occasionally and online. I'd totally go "hooray!" for a more streamlined Pathfinder - moreso than for 5E, as it happens. I'm still concerned about how much 4E influence will sneak into 5E.
 
(Also BTW, our group have never used miniatures with PF).

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;526983It went on to become one of the most popular editions.

Based on discussions I have read over the years, each edition of D&D has sold less than the previous one. 3e was no doubt a better seller than 4e, but 2e outsold 3e which was in turn outsold by 1e.

Of course, fans of any edition want to point to their edition's success based on the quality of the game itself. But I argue that D&D sales has less to do with the actual game than with the size of the available RPG audience.

Perhaps 5e will buck the trend and return to 3e level sales. Perhaps there is a large audience of 3ers who will abandon Paizo and OSRers who will abandon DIY and small press. Perhaps WotC will actually spend money on advertising and marketing this time.

We will see.

Quote from: ggroy;526986At the time, how much of a factor were video games like Diablo and Everquest?

They didn't call it Evercrack for nothing! But the success of WoW is on a staggering different level. Certainly the average internet speed of 1999 vs. 2008 vs. 2012 plays a big part.

A friend of mine has buddies at Blizzard and the in-house discussion about non-WoW games being developed isn't about how much money they will make, but "we can make Diablo III for the hell of it because WoW makes so much damn money."

Quote from: Spinachcat;527032..2e ... was ... outsold by 1e.

That would surprise me. I'd have thought that 2e was D&D's peak, in terms of sales.

I can easily believe, however, that 3/3.5e outsold 4e.

I expect that, having taken a bitchslapping over 4e, they'll make sure that 5e is up to scratch. Furthermore, I expect that they will plan for 5e to last much longer than 4e and it wouldn't suprise me if we saw the return of Basic and Advanced versions of the game.

Quote from: Spinachcat;527032Perhaps 5e will buck the trend and return to 3e level sales. "

I doubt it, but I think that has less to do with what edition it is, and more to do with I see less and less people doing face to face gaming at the game table than before.

I blame technology.

Quote from: Dodger;527037That would surprise me. I'd have thought that 2e was D&D's peak, in terms of sales.

I can easily believe, however, that 3/3.5e outsold 4e.

I expect that, having taken a bitchslapping over 4e, they'll make sure that 5e is up to scratch. Furthermore, I expect that they will plan for 5e to last much longer than 4e and it wouldn't suprise me if we saw the return of Basic and Advanced versions of the game.

3e was peak.

It's hard to compare sales of editions when some editions were out for much longer than others, but my understanding is that the release of 3ed was the biggest uptick of D&D sales since the old basic boxes caught fire in the early 80's.

Quote from: Spinachcat;527032Based on discussions I have read over the years, each edition of D&D has sold less than the previous one. 3e was no doubt a better seller than 4e, but 2e outsold 3e which was in turn outsold by 1e.

If you divide everything in to 1st/2nd/3rd/4th, I am 100% sure that 3rd outsold 2nd and 2nd outsold 1st.

Fuck alone knows where 4th is, I could easily believe anywhere from 2nd to 4th place.

Quote from: Dodger;527037That would surprise me. I'd have thought that 2e was D&D's peak, in terms of sales.

I have heard from some folks who were at TSR that the shift to 2e cut sales neatly in half.

They were printing and selling copies of the 1e Players Handbook and Unearthed arcana well into 2e's life.

I know it's indicative of nothing, but we didn't really get the point behind 2e* and I think that only one 2e phb made its way into the communal pile, whereas nearly all of us had copies of all the major 1e books.






*there was certainly an edition treadmill already, but it was completely lost on us for a variety of reasons: We missed the LBB's, played Holmes for a bit but moved quickly to 1e and ignored B/X and BECMI because they were for babies.

Quote from: Aos;527064*there was certainly an edition treadmill already, but it was completely lost on us for a variety of reasons:

Back in the day, we thought the "treadmill" was in the form of TSR cranking out tons of modules.

(I stopped playing rpg games altogether before 2E was released, and before tons of "Complete *" books and Forgotten Realms stuff was released).

Quote from: Dodger;527037Furthermore, I expect that they will plan for 5e to last much longer than 4e and it wouldn't suprise me if we saw the return of Basic and Advanced versions of the game.

I doubt we will see 5e last longer than 4e or the 3e->3.5 timeframe. There is just too much money in new corebooks.

I would LOVE to see a return to a Basic vs. Advanced versions of the game.

WotC burned all of the bridges between themselves and me with 4E. I hope folks enjoy 5E but I'm not joining the migration. I'll stay with Pathfinder.

Quote from: Spinachcat;527098I doubt we will see 5e last longer than 4e or the 3e->3.5 timeframe. There is just too much money in new corebooks.

Heinsoo 4E -> 4E Essentials, lasted a bit over two years.  (June 2008 -> September 2010).

3E -> 3.5E, lasted almost three years.  (August 2000 -> July 2003).

If 5E isn't released in published paper book form, in principle they can keep on updating the rules every day.  (ie. Like software patches).  In such a scenario where the rulebooks are in the form of computer program, there would be no need for fractional editions (other than for bookkeeping purposes like software versions).

Quote from: Spinachcat;527098I would LOVE to see a return to a Basic vs. Advanced versions of the game.

One possible risk with such a split, is the basic game being regarded as the "kiddie" or "baby" version of the game.  (Many D&D players I gamed with back in the day, thought this way in regard to the AD&D vs. D&D product lines).

Quote from: ggroy;527249One possible risk with such a split, is the basic game being regarded as the "kiddie" or "baby" version of the game.  (Many D&D players I gamed with back in the day, thought this way in regard to the AD&D vs. D&D product lines).

This doesn't matter if it sells.

Quote from: ggroy;527249If 5E isn't released in published paper book form...

I don't see that happening. In fact, I would quite happily bet real money that 5e will be published in book form.

QuoteOne possible risk with such a split, is the basic game being regarded as the "kiddie" or "baby" version of the game.  (Many D&D players I gamed with back in the day, thought this way in regard to the AD&D vs. D&D product lines).

So? Don't try to fight it; embrace it! To my mind, the rationale behind having such a split would be have D&D boxed sets (simplified ruleset, miniatures, etc.) as a means of introducing new/younger players to the hobby, with the intention that they will eventually "graduate" to AD&D. Experienced players would, of course, skip the basic game and plunge straight into AD&D.

Quote from: Dodger;527252I don't see that happening. In fact, I would quite happily bet real money that 5e will be published in book form.

One possible strategy, would be to first release 5E D&D as a subscription DDI computer application.

Once they have the rules ironed out and debugged (whether several months to a year later), they can publish (on paper) a 5e "Rules Compendium" book (similar to the 4E Essentials Rules Compendium book) and a player book covering the classic classes (ie. fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric).

Quote from: ggroy;527249If 5E isn't released in published paper book form, in principle they can keep on updating the rules every day.

But if they sell you dead tree hardcovers AND online content, they can eat up even more cash. I regularly see PDF vs. Dead Tree threads where gamers say they happily buy both.

I can imagine the 5e core books becoming part of an online subscription service, but they will still be selling the dead tree versions too.

Or perhaps 5e will go OGL...

Quote from: Spinachcat;527325Or perhaps 5e will go OGL...

That would probably be the best ever thing for its longtime success like 3e with Pathfinder and derivatives like Fantasy Craft but I never see Wotc being allowed to do it, not with typical Hasbro operating procedure.  Hopefully we'll get something better than GSL, that I can realistically see.

Quote from: Spinachcat;527098I doubt we will see 5e last longer than 4e or the 3e->3.5 timeframe. There is just too much money in new corebooks.

Just ask college bookstores.  :D

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;527462Just ask college bookstores.  :D

JG

In the case of popular college textbooks, the biggest problem I've heard of over the years is that the second handed textbook market literally cannibalizes the sales of brand new copies of the same titles.  

This problem was greatly accelerated over the late 1990's, when used textbooks could be easily sold online.  (Before the internet became popular, the used textbook markets were typical more "localized" to a particular college campus or city).

Nobody has mentioned any hard numbers, but I've heard of a few authors mentioning that their royalty payments slowed down to a trickle (sometimes even to almost nothing), a year or two after a particular new edition of their popular textbook is published.  (I'll have to find the articles again).

For these reasons alone, it's not surprising as to why some popular textbooks have a new edition every 3 or 4 years, over the last 15+ years or so.  (Before the internet became popular, the time between editions were often 5+ years apart for some popular textbooks).

(EDIT:  For a few popular textbooks in recent years, the turnaround time for a new edition has been as fast as two or three years).

How much this used book market "cannibalization" is a problem for publishers of rpg books, is not entirely clear.  (ie.  Nobody saying much about it, and WotC not disclosing sales and print run figures).  The few titles I would guess where this could possibly be a significant problem, would be the core WotC D&D books.

Quote from: Rincewind1;5270393e was peak.

I thought there were supposedly as many as 24 million players in the '80s.  I thought I read that somewhere.  If true that would make 1e and/or BECMI much bigger sellers, wouldn't it?

Quote from: ggroy;527524In the case of popular college textbooks, the biggest problem I've heard of over the years is that the second handed textbook market literally cannibalizes the sales of brand new copies of the same titles.  

This problem was greatly accelerated over the late 1990's, when used textbooks could be easily sold online.  (Before the internet became popular, the used textbook markets were typical more "localized" to a particular college campus or city).

Nobody has mentioned any hard numbers, but I've heard of a few authors mentioning that their royalty payments slowed down to a trickle (sometimes even to almost nothing), a year or two after a particular new edition of their popular textbook is published.  (I'll have to find the articles again).

For these reasons alone, it's not surprising as to why some popular textbooks have a new edition every 3 or 4 years, over the last 15+ years or so.  (Before the internet became popular, the time between editions were often 5+ years apart for some popular textbooks).

(EDIT:  For a few popular textbooks in recent years, the turnaround time for a new edition has been as fast as two or three years).

How much this used book market "cannibalization" is a problem for publishers of rpg books, is not entirely clear.  (ie.  Nobody saying much about it, and WotC not disclosing sales and print run figures).  The few titles I would guess where this could possibly be a significant problem, would be the core WotC D&D books.

Having gone back to school recently I've found that the previous edition of a textbook tends to be almost exactly the same and about $100 cheaper.  The international editions are exactly the same but if the instructor is assigning homework out of the book you have to figure out which page the problem is on in your book because they purposely switch up the order.  The books I'm talking about were all about computer science topics.

Most students seem to still buy the current editions, but I don't know how many have financial aid for the bookstore.  That is a factor.  And as I'm going to a community college some of the students have jobs and therefore money and don't want to bother with saving money when they aren't sure the older or international version will be up to snuff.

Quote from: The Defenestrator;527545I thought there were supposedly as many as 24 million players in the '80s.  I thought I read that somewhere.  If true that would make 1e and/or BECMI much bigger sellers, wouldn't it?

I haven't heard any number like that, but I have heard from multiple places that Mentzer's Basic set was the best selling by a huge margin at over 1.5 million copies sold.

Quote from: The Defenestrator;527545I thought there were supposedly as many as 24 million players in the '80s.  I thought I read that somewhere.  If true that would make 1e and/or BECMI much bigger sellers, wouldn't it?

Both IMO. And you are right, all the numbers of D&D players are dwarfed by the 80s era's.

Where there is a point of contention is that there are those (mostly people who think of those games as "obsolete", not coincidentally) who believe this was SOLELY due to the "newness" of the hobby and that it cannot possibly be repeated, whereas there are others who believe this is at least in part because of the games themselves and their inherent qualities that this Golden era could exist in the first place.

I think the truth lies somewhere in between.

Quote from: Benoist;527555Both IMO. And you are right, all the numbers of D&D players are dwarfed by the 80s era's.

Where there is a point of contention is that there are those (mostly people who think of those games as "obsolete", not coincidentally) who believe this was SOLELY due to the "newness" of the hobby and that it cannot possibly be repeated, whereas there are others who believe this is at least in part because of the games themselves and their inherent qualities that this Golden era could exist in the first place.

I think the truth lies somewhere in between.

I also think technology has something to do with it.  In the 80s if you wanted your social fantasy/sci-fi gaming fix, you had to meet with friends face to face and play the tabletop.  Now all you have to do is plop over to your PC, log into WoW or whatever and play your social fantasy game that way.  Certainly this doesn't apply to everyone, but it impacts a lot of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%26D#Acclaim_and_influence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%26D#Acclaim_and_influence)

QuoteBy 2004, consumers had spent more than US$1 billion on Dungeons & Dragons products and the game had been played by more than 20 million people.[10] As many as 6 million people played the game in 2007.[91

Okay, the 24 million number was Wizards' estimate of 'lapsed players' a couple of years ago when they also said they thought they had 1.5 million current players.  Some years before that (1999 I think) the company's estimate was 6 million players, but I've seen Erik Mona write on Enworld that his experience at Dungeon and Dragon led him to believe the real number was lower than that.

QuoteBy 2004, consumers had spent more than US$1 billion on Dungeons & Dragons products and the game had been played by more than 20 million people.[10] As many as 6 million people played the game in 2007.[91

I believe those numbers come from a Wizards court filing.  How they arrived at them is unknown but it's intersting that the six million number matches the estimate of a study Wizards conducted in the 90's.

Also, while I am posting in a thread called 'D&D Next vs Pathfinder,' I should state that I think the thread title has it all wrong.

If this next edition has a third party-friendly license and it it's even remotely fun to play, I'm sure Paizo will happily publish adventure paths and other materials for it.  My guess is they are keeping their fingers crossed that they can do that.

It will be interesting to see what Wizards/Hasbro decides about the license, but I can't imagine they've made tons of money on their 4e fluff material.  An open license might be an easier sell to the suits this time around.

Also, by the time the next edition comes out Pathfinder will be far removed from the days when it was the shiny new toy.  Any comparison of sales of the two systems at that time would be unfair and largely meaningless.

I'll be surprised Paizo announces a new edition anytime soon and even more surprised if it does well.  Being evergreen is a strong selling point for them even if they've made no priomises in that regard.  

I think that no matter what happens with the next edition, Paizo will continue to support Pathfinder with lots of fluff material long into the future and Pathfinder will survive long-term, albeit with fewer players than now.  Depending on what the new game looks like, some might even see it as the new 'Advanced' D&D.  No matter what happens I think the people running Paizo ought to be pretty pleased ith themselves.  No great run lasts forever.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;526823The current edition of D&D will always be popular, and if they can increase their gamer base by allowing players of previous editions to play how they want to play rather than be forced to play a certain way they don't like, they will be #1 again.

THIS is exactly right. It will be the single determinant factor in whether D&D will be able to be solidly #1 again; whether or not 5e manages to create an edition that lets people play the game how they like to play it rather than being TOLD how they must play it.

RPGPundit

Also, I'll predict right here that IF 5e succeeds at that design goal stated above, Pathfinder will lose at least half its customers to 5e; all the ones who left D&D out of spite because it wouldn't be what they wanted it to be.

The problem I see with Pathfinder is that a very significant portion of its fanbase are people who'd rather be playing D&D, if they felt like they could.  They want a D&D that is currently supported, that supports their playstyle, and that isn't 4e.   Pathfinder is just the cheap floozy they're shacking up with until their wife gets off the sauce and they can stand to live with her again.  As soon as that happens, they'll dump the substitute like yesterday's news.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Dodger;527037That would surprise me. I'd have thought that 2e was D&D's peak, in terms of sales.

I can easily believe, however, that 3/3.5e outsold 4e.

I expect that, having taken a bitchslapping over 4e, they'll make sure that 5e is up to scratch. Furthermore, I expect that they will plan for 5e to last much longer than 4e and it wouldn't suprise me if we saw the return of Basic and Advanced versions of the game.

Based on what has been posted at times by people actually qualified on the subject (ie. people who worked at WoTC or TSR), it would appear the most likely order of best-selling versions of D&D goes something like this:

1. The red box D&D Basic
2. AD&D 1e
3. D&D 3e
4. D&D 2e
5. D&D 4e

Everything else being somewhere below that.  However, this too may be wrong as Ryan Dancey has claimed that 3e in fact outsold 1e.  I'm not sure if that's possibly true or not, but the general consensus is that there's little doubt that 3e outsold 2e.  
We know 2e only sold about half of what 1e sold.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;527938Also, I'll predict right here that IF 5e succeeds at that design goal stated above, Pathfinder will lose at least half its customers to 5e; all the ones who left D&D out of spite because it wouldn't be what they wanted it to be.

The problem I see with Pathfinder is that a very significant portion of its fanbase are people who'd rather be playing D&D, if they felt like they could.  They want a D&D that is currently supported, that supports their playstyle, and that isn't 4e.   Pathfinder is just the cheap floozy they're shacking up with until their wife gets off the sauce and they can stand to live with her again.  As soon as that happens, they'll dump the substitute like yesterday's news.

RPGPundit

I wouldn't be surprised if something like this happens.

Amongst the local D&D players I've known who had moved on to Pathfinder (instead of 4E), just about every single one of them fit into this category.

4E was just too radically different for these players, and Pathfinder just happened to pop up at the right time in the right place.  Most of them I suspect would have just continued playing 3.5E D&D if the Pathfinder rpg never existed.

Quote from: RPGPundit;527940However, this too may be wrong as Ryan Dancey has claimed that 3e in fact outsold 1e.  I'm not sure if that's possibly true or not, but the general consensus is that there's little doubt that 3e outsold 2e.  

I remember reading something on this from a former WOTC staffer some years back (although I can't find it online now). The gist of it (from memory, mind you) was that Dancey's claim was technically true but very misleading. The total volume of 3.x hardback books sold exceeded the total number of 1e hardback books sold, but there were far more 3.x hardback books published than 1e hardback books and the 3.5 revision meant that a lot of people bought both the 3.0 and the 3.5 versions of books published for both editions/versions.

Quote from: RandallS;527959I remember reading something on this from a former WOTC staffer some years back (although I can't find it online now). The gist of it (from memory, mind you) was that Dancey's claim was technically true but very misleading. The total volume of 3.x hardback books sold exceeded the total number of 1e hardback books sold, but there were far more 3.x hardback books published than 1e hardback books and the 3.5 revision meant that a lot of people bought both the 3.0 and the 3.5 versions of books published for both editions/versions.

Yes, I was going to point that out.

Quote from: RPGPundit;527938The problem I see with Pathfinder is that a very significant portion of its fanbase are people who'd rather be playing D&D, if they felt like they could.  They want a D&D that is currently supported, that supports their playstyle, and that isn't 4e.   Pathfinder is just the cheap floozy they're shacking up with until their wife gets off the sauce and they can stand to live with her again.  As soon as that happens, they'll dump the substitute like yesterday's news.

RPGPundit

Cheap floozies need love too, besides my wife likes to keep the cheap floozy around for threesomes.

Quote from: RPGPundit;527940We know 2e only sold about half of what 1e sold.

I'm genuinely surprised. I'd have thought that the sheer shelf inchage of 2e would have pushed it to the top...

Quote from: RPGPundit;527938Also, I'll predict right here that IF 5e succeeds at that design goal stated above, Pathfinder will lose at least half its customers to 5e; all the ones who left D&D out of spite because it wouldn't be what they wanted it to be.

The problem I see with Pathfinder is that a very significant portion of its fanbase are people who'd rather be playing D&D, if they felt like they could.  They want a D&D that is currently supported, that supports their playstyle, and that isn't 4e.   Pathfinder is just the cheap floozy they're shacking up with until their wife gets off the sauce and they can stand to live with her again.  As soon as that happens, they'll dump the substitute like yesterday's news.

RPGPundit

You're probably right but my actual hope is 5e is different enough from Pathfinder so that I can play both like the game whore I aspire to be.  Better bet for Wotc would be the make a better GSL/OGL so it would be easier for 3pp stuff. Bet Paizo would have no problem writing adventure paths for 5e if it benifited them a bit.

Quote from: Dodger;527965I'm genuinely surprised. I'd have thought that the sheer shelf inchage of 2e would have pushed it to the top...

Actually, according to Ryan Dancey's account of the state of affairs at TSR when WotC bought the company, it did exactly the reverse: bury it into the ground.

Too bad, since 2e (core books) was the best edition of D&D. For 3e, the only real changes I would have made would have been Ascending AC and maybe the 3e saves (which I do like much more than prior editions).

Double post.

Quote from: danbuter;528078Too bad, since 2e (core books) was the best edition of D&D. For 3e, the only real changes I would have made would have been Ascending AC and maybe the 3e saves (which I do like much more than prior editions).

Careful you'll be shoved into 1989''s and my corner speaking heresy like that.:D

Personally I think a hidden factor in this is that 1e was in print for an extraordinary amount of time. Longer than 2e plus the whole Pat Pulling/Jack Chick factor.  Not the actual substance of game which is objectively better especially since you could port in whatever 1e stuff you wanted straight over no adjustments needed. They are the same game beyond the fluff despite what some say.

Perhaps the most important factor in 1e's and 0e success is the lack of competition and strong moving force of being the original product.

I am quite surprised to find 3e outshone (given what I read earlier), but what do you know. Although as Randal pointed out, the problem is the sheer volume of 3e material might not compare to 1e.

Quote from: Rincewind1;528085Perhaps the most important factor in 1e's and 0e success is the lack of competition and strong moving force of being the original product.

I am quite surprised to find 3e outshone (given what I read earlier), but what do you know. Although as Randal pointed out, the problem is the sheer volume of 3e material might not compare to 1e.

Yeah, seems obvious to me. The playerbase was whole because there literally was no other option and the hobby being what it is, word of mouth is paramount and literally makes or breaks a game sight unseen even today, let alone when I was like 5 or 10.;)

If 3e was just cleaned up and revised a bit it wouldn't be close. Pathfinder proves it in spades, queen sized even. Instead they make 4e and well Dungeon Delver's sig pretty much says it all, quite succinctly and with humor I might add.

Quote from: Benoist;528070Actually, according to Ryan Dancey's account of the state of affairs at TSR when WotC bought the company, it did exactly the reverse: bury it into the ground.

Well, yes, eventually...

Quote from: RPGPundit;527937THIS is exactly right. It will be the single determinant factor in whether D&D will be able to be solidly #1 again; whether or not 5e manages to create an edition that lets people play the game how they like to play it rather than being TOLD how they must play it.

RPGPundit

There has never, ever been anything stopping players from doing this. It can't happen. What will be a determining factor is if players get the game they want *supported*. I don't know if you can please everyone. In fact I think even trying dilutes your efforts. You end up with a whole lot of bland, half-ass material. Better to work on a few, solid concepts. Which can't happen if you are trying to pander to *everyone*. Seems like a massive waste of time and effort to me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;527938The problem I see with Pathfinder is that a very significant portion of its fanbase are people who'd rather be playing D&D, if they felt like they could.  They want a D&D that is currently supported, that supports their playstyle, and that isn't 4e.   Pathfinder is just the cheap floozy they're shacking up with until their wife gets off the sauce and they can stand to live with her again.  As soon as that happens, they'll dump the substitute like yesterday's news.

RPGPundit

No, Pathfinder is the well-maintained girl who looks like the wife did before she let herself go, and unlike the wife, treats the guy decently.  Whether the guy dumps the substitute depends on IF the old wife shapes up, and that remains to be seen.

JG

I don't care, I play OSRIC and C&C or Warhammer Fantasy anymore, D&D what?

5e?  won't buy it anyhow.

I'm astonished at how many people think this will be an either/or equation. Like owning a copy of LotFP somehow means you could never play or own a 5E product.

Some people will buy 5E because it's he latest thing. Others will judge it on its own merits and if they like what they see it will sit very comfortably next to the 4E and PF books.

Personally I'd be happy to play a game of 1E, 2E, 3/3.5, PF any retroclone you care to name etc. I'll judge 5E solely on how I like the rules.

The only D&D game I'd refuse to play is 4E because it's a steaming pile of shit...

Quote from: Fiasco;528223I'm astonished at how many people think this will be an either/or equation. Like owning a copy of LotFP somehow means you could never play or own a 5E product.

Some people will buy 5E because it's he latest thing. Others will judge it on its own merits and if they like what they see it will sit very comfortably next to the 4E and PF books.

Personally I'd be happy to play a game of 1E, 2E, 3/3.5, PF any retroclone you care to name etc. I'll judge 5E solely on how I like the rules.

The only D&D game I'd refuse to play is 4E because it's a steaming pile of shit...

I will say it one more time. My wish is that they make 5e a fun and solid game on its own merits that's its own thing not some 3e rehash so that I can play both Pathfinder and 5e and not look back. Oh yeah I agree with you about 4e except there are a couple of good things in it like monster creation.

Quote from: Marleycat;528225I will say it one more time. My wish is that they make 5e a fun and solid game on its own merits that's its own thing not some 3e rehash so that I can play both Pathfinder and 5e and not look back. Oh yeah I agree with you about 4e except there are a couple of good things in it like monster creation.

I never read the 4E DMG (the only 4E product I own is the PHB) but I am in favour of separate mechanics for monsters/NPCs and PCS.   If 5E cuts down the time to resolve combats and to stat monsters/NPCs I'll be very much a fan.

Quote from: Fiasco;528235I never read the 4E DMG (the only 4E product I own is the PHB) but I am in favour of separate mechanics for monsters/NPCs and PCS.   If 5E cuts down the time to resolve combats and to stat monsters/NPCs I'll be very much a fan.

It turned out the monster damage was too weak in the 4E DMG1.  This was later corrected in the DMG1 errata.

IIRC, the 4E Monster Manual 3 was the first 4E book which featured the corrected monster damage.

(Dunno if this corrected monster damage table ever showed up in the 4E Essentials DM's Kit or Monster Vault).

Quote from: RPGPundit;527938The problem I see with Pathfinder is that a very significant portion of its fanbase are people who'd rather be playing D&D, if they felt like they could.  They want a D&D that is currently supported, that supports their playstyle, and that isn't 4e.   Pathfinder is just the cheap floozy they're shacking up with until their wife gets off the sauce and they can stand to live with her again.  As soon as that happens, they'll dump the substitute like yesterday's news.

You've got it wrong. Paizo's fanbase (and its business model) is built around the adventure paths. They tapped into a huge demand for high-quality, well-produced, well-written adventures and campaigns that busy DMs can plug and play. The Pathfinder core books support the setting material, not the other way around.

Unless 5E releases with a shoot-the-lights-out adventure path, Pathfinder players will shrug and continue with the next Paizo adventure path. And since Paizo seems to have secured the services of the best adventure writers in the business, I don't rate it likely WotC steals their market share.

WotC made a big mistake when it hitched its cart to endless crunch expansions and system mastery. Paizo was very astute to recognize the primacy of adventures and coherent campaigns in  today's market. Most GMs simply don't have the time to make up their own adventures, let alone Level 1-14 mega-campaigns.

Quote from: Haffrung;530641You've got it wrong. Paizo's fanbase (and its business model) is built around the adventure paths. They tapped into a huge demand for high-quality, well-produced, well-written adventures and campaigns that busy DMs can plug and play. The Pathfinder core books support the setting material, not the other way around.

Unless 5E releases with a shoot-the-lights-out adventure path, Pathfinder players will shrug and continue with the next Paizo adventure path. And since Paizo seems to have secured the services of the best adventure writers in the business, I don't rate it likely WotC steals their market share.

WotC made a big mistake when it hitched its cart to endless crunch expansions and system mastery. Paizo was very astute to recognize the primacy of adventures and coherent campaigns in  today's market. Most GMs simply don't have the time to make up their own adventures, let alone Level 1-14 mega-campaigns.

I see the opposite happening I see Wotc making overtures to Paizo to write Adventure Paths for 5e. Best for all concerned if they do it, especially the fanbase.

Quote from: Marleycat;530642I see the opposite happening I see Wotc making overtures to Paizo to write Adventure Paths for 5e. Best for all concerned if they do it, especially the fanbase.

Why would Paizo do that? First, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot by supporting a game that's in direct competition with their own. And second, they only have so much writing/editing/layout resources at their disposal. Writing adventures for WotC would mean cutting back on the release of Pathfinder adventures. Doesn't make sense.

Quote from: Haffrung;530646Why would Paizo do that? First, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot by supporting a game that's in direct competition with their own. And second, they only have so much writing/editing/layout resources at their disposal. Writing adventures for WotC would mean cutting back on the release of Pathfinder adventures. Doesn't make sense.

Profit. And the fact that Pundit is right. A good portion of Pathfinder fans will play and buy 5e product if done right, bank on it.

Alot of them went to Pathfinder because 4e is 4e not 3.75/3.85e not because it's the savior of Dnd. The game has issues, big ones but it is a supported version of 3/3.5e with Adventure paths so alot of fans bite their tongue and grin and bear it.

The important thing they have done which will forever make them a player is that they are not on the suppliment mill. So they could easily branch out and not lose the core of their audience while making serious money in the bargain.

Quote from: Marleycat;530649Profit. And the fact that Pundit is right. A good portion of Pathfinder fans will play and buy 5e product if done right, bank on it.

If they do so, they are ran by complete idiots. Providing material for the other product risks loosing part of your products' audience. They'd be turning in some dubiously high short profit, in return for loosing long profit. There is not enough money in adventure supplements to risk such an approach.

Quote from: Rincewind1;530651If they do so, they are ran by complete idiots. Providing material for the other product risks loosing part of your products' audience. They'd be turning in some dubiously high short profit, in return for loosing long profit. There is not enough money in adventure supplements to risk such an approach.

It will depend on what kind of OGL/GSL there is or if Paizo decides to put out a second edition. Or even if 5e is successful and I don't mean 4e successful. That's why I see Wotc making the first move and it depends how sweet the deal is from there to see what Paizo would really do. I just see it being offered at the very least.

Quote from: Marleycat;530655It will depend on what kind of OGL/GSL there is or if Paizo decides to put out a second edition. Or even if 5e is successful and I don't mean 4e successful. That's why I see Wotc making the first move and it depends how sweet the deal is from there to see what Paizo would really do. I just see it being offered at the very least.

No Rincewind is right.
If the selling point of Pathfinder is Adventure Paths and the same (or of the same Quality ) APs are available for 5e then by definition some of the Pathfinder players will move to 5e.

Making APs for 5e only makes sense for Pathfinder if 5e has already destroyed the Pathfinder market. But I think its hard to go to being a Player and then step back to be a provider of support material for D&D again.

The RPG market is not big enough for Pathfinder to try and sail two ships at once.

In the end, the final decision will be determined by how much of the Pathfinder book sales are decimated, shortly after 5E is released.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the monthly Pathfinder book sales, are from the compulsive collector/completionist types.  The question is how much of that crowd will abandon the Pathfinder treadmill.

Quote from: RPGPundit;527938Also, I'll predict right here that IF 5e succeeds at that design goal stated above, Pathfinder will lose at least half its customers to 5e; all the ones who left D&D out of spite because it wouldn't be what they wanted it to be.

The problem I see with Pathfinder is that a very significant portion of its fanbase are people who'd rather be playing D&D, if they felt like they could.  They want a D&D that is currently supported, that supports their playstyle, and that isn't 4e.   Pathfinder is just the cheap floozy they're shacking up with until their wife gets off the sauce and they can stand to live with her again.  As soon as that happens, they'll dump the substitute like yesterday's news.

RPGPundit

Pundit, I don't want to burst your bubble, as I know you've pitched your tent to 5e and all, but...you're wasting your time. 5e is doomed to fail. It will fare no better than 4e did, and probably do worse. And it certainly won't defeat Pathfinder in the marketplace either. Does anyone really believe that Pathfinder is just going to magically lose half of its player base to 5e? I don't. I'm sorry, but it's just not realistic. An ever-increasing number of people just don't trust WoTC any more (for valid reasons), while Paizo, on the other hand, has a strong reputation simply by virtue of treating its customers right, and by the strength of its adventure paths for an edition that tons of people actually play.

I'm studying for a test, so I really don't have time to fully explain the other reasons why 5e is destined to fail (at least compared to Pathfinder), but I'll just say....WoTC is gonna blow it. You cannot please every proponent of every edition with a single game. If you attempt to do so, you risk creating a highly-diluted gaming experience that resembles wet cardboard. When creating a roleplaying game, you must draw a line in the sand somewhere, and make design choices to create both a coherent game, and a specific implied meta-setting. In doing so, they'll inevitably alienate huge chunks of gamers out there, because the D&D player base is totally fragmented right now.

I hate to post and run, as I want to get into a more detailed discussion about how AD&D and the OSR can potentially affect the hobby and the market, and also how the OGL was part of the key to 3e's success, and much, much more...but I don't have time. I really need to pass this test, so I'll just delve into this stuff later...

But yeah. 5e vs Pathfinder? Pathfinder wins. :pundit:

~Sacrificial Lamb

Quote from: jibbajibba;530664No Rincewind is right.
If the selling point of Pathfinder is Adventure Paths and the same (or of the same Quality ) APs are available for 5e then by definition some of the Pathfinder players will move to 5e.

Making APs for 5e only makes sense for Pathfinder if 5e has already destroyed the Pathfinder market. But I think its hard to go to being a Player and then step back to be a provider of support material for D&D again.

The RPG market is not big enough for Pathfinder to try and sail two ships at once.

We will see, thank God I am a winner no matter what happens so I really have no dog in this hunt. If 5e is successful great, it may be another game I like and support. If it fails I have Pathfinder win win for me.:)

Quote from: ggroy;530670In the end, the final decision will be determined by how much of the Pathfinder book sales are decimated, shortly after 5E is released.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the monthly Pathfinder book sales, are from the compulsive collector/completionist types.  The question is how much of that crowd will abandon the Pathfinder treadmill.

No doubt a lot of people buy RPG books as reading material. That's true for every RPG (how many people are actually playing Ars Magica versus buying the books just to read?). But I don't see how that's a treadmill. You're not chasing anything by buying, or falling behind if you don't buy.

Paizo has secured a large market of customers who buy high production value D&D adventures and setting material by subscription. Good for them. It's a perfectly valid business model. Frankly, I think it's a better business model for the hobby than endless splat books.

If 5E delivers a better D&D experience than 3E (PF did not fix any significant flaws) it will succeed.

It's a given that it won't be as shit as 4E.

Quote from: Fiasco;530748If 5E delivers a better D&D experience than 3E (PF did not fix any significant flaws) it will succeed.

It's a given that it won't be as shit as 4E.

4e is like the ultimate rock bottom.

It's like the dark ages of D&D.

It will forever live in infamy.

Years from now, people will look back and say, with a mix of horror and disbelief, what the f*ck were they thinking???!!

Woe to those who were upon the earth during the great Tribulation of 4e.

Quote from: 1989;530848Woe to those who were upon the earth during the great Tribulation of 4e.

4E becoming the infamous "lost edition"?

Quote from: ggroy;5308534E becoming the infamous "lost edition"?

1989 and myself can only hope, every dog has it's day it's a fact, like death. ;)

Hmm...if 5E is designed to be modular/compatible with older D&Ds, then it may end up being accidentally Pathfinder compatible as well. (if not completely compatible, perhaps a few pages of conversion notes will do). If so, Paizo could gain more fans as a result of 5E coming out.

Unrelated to that, I have to wonder how much of 3E's success is due to the OGL (if nothing else, it meant a large number of companies that would otherwise have been competitors instead made 3rd party products for them  that in turn helped sell D&D books). Can 5E prosper without that? Or is there any chance they will attempt to do some sort of OGL for it?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;530872Hmm...if 5E is designed to be modular/compatible with older D&Ds, then it may end up being accidentally Pathfinder compatible as well. (if not completely compatible, perhaps a few pages of conversion notes will do). If so, Paizo could gain more fans as a result of 5E coming out.

Unrelated to that, I have to wonder how much of 3E's success is due to the OGL (if nothing else, it meant a large number of companies that would otherwise have been competitors instead made 3rd party products for them  that in turn helped sell D&D books). Can 5E prosper without that? Or is there any chance they will attempt to do some sort of OGL for it?

Of course the reason 3e and by extension Pathfinder are/were successful is the OGL.  Right now Paizo doesn't do the splatcrap mill because 3pp's do it for them.

And yes if 5e is successful it will be somewhat compatible with Pathfinder.  From there the ball is in Wotc's court as I see it.

Quote from: ggroy;5308534E becoming the infamous "lost edition"?

Oh, you mean like that sequel to Highlander?

JG

I do think it is very possible that wotc reclaims a large swat of pathfinder  fans and resumes its old place in the market. However i think a large number of scenarios are also possible:

-5E could bomb and lose even more customers
-other companies could step in and gain the 4E fans (maybe heinsoo's project had this potential. So a three-way split between pathfinder/5E and quasi-4E
-paizo could be the one who gains, and becomethe dominant rpg co.

I dont think anyone can predict with accuracy what will occur.

My own position asa consumer is (after 4E, and even after some of the junk they tried to sell during 3E): spending 90 bucks on three core books and possiboy more on modular ad-ons, is something I will think carefully about. Right now there are lots of more stable systems that dont get massive overhauls every few years and only require one or two books to play. On the other hand, D&D is a game I would love to be passionate about again. Never made the switch to pathfinder (3E was good but it had issues that needed fixing, 4E was just worse by a mile, plus nt a fan paizo's adventures). Pretty much started playing other games and using older editions of D&D.

Hope they come up with a good game. For me the game had to be quality and the business model can't be what WOTC as tried in the past.

Quote from: James Gillen;530920Oh, you mean like that sequel to Highlander?

JG

Very much.

Or perhaps the Star Trek V movie.

The way it currently stands the playtest has it's own appeal. Elements of various editions are present however it doesn't play exactly like any other edition.

What haven't been seen is any detailed options and more importantly how they are going to be presented. When they are ready to show this then we will see how well D&D Next will appeal to 4e gamers.  

Finally D&D Next isn't just going to be about appealing to lapse current gamers but also to mothers and fathers that haven't played in a long time. And to make sure the foundation of the game is approachable by novice gamers. If the current playtest continues to exist in the final version then D&D Next will have a good shot at accomplishing both of these goals as well as has having appeal to current fans of older editions.

I doubt fans of older editions will drop playing those edition in favor of D&D Next. But as it stands now anything made for the D&D Next playtest is easily adapted to an older edition game. I think what will happen is that some older edition players will migrate to D&D Next, a lot more will use it as secondary game to run at game stores and conventions, and the same number will find D&D Next adventures and supplements useful for their older edition games.

Again this all assume that what we see in the playtest remains uncluttered in the final version. I.e. presented as options in their own chapters that can be ignored.

Quote from: estar;530978The way it currently stands the playtest has it's own appeal. Elements of various editions are present however it doesn't play exactly like any other edition.

What haven't been seen is any detailed options and more importantly how they are going to be presented. When they are ready to show this then we will see how well D&D Next will appeal to 4e gamers.  

Finally D&D Next isn't just going to be about appealing to lapse current gamers but also to mothers and fathers that haven't played in a long time. And to make sure the foundation of the game is approachable by novice gamers. If the current playtest continues to exist in the final version then D&D Next will have a good shot at accomplishing both of these goals as well as has having appeal to current fans of older editions.

I doubt fans of older editions will drop playing those edition in favor of D&D Next. But as it stands now anything made for the D&D Next playtest is easily adapted to an older edition game. I think what will happen is that some older edition players will migrate to D&D Next, a lot more will use it as secondary game to run at game stores and conventions, and the same number will find D&D Next adventures and supplements useful for their older edition games.

Again this all assume that what we see in the playtest remains uncluttered in the final version. I.e. presented as options in their own chapters that can be ignored.

Based on what you have seen estar, how do you think someone like me, who loved 2E, liked 3e but had issues with it, and hated 4e would react to the game?

Also has any of the playtest material given you a sense of what the plan may be for book releases (do you think we are in store for stuff like splats for example).

QuoteAlso has any of the playtest material given you a sense of what the plan may be for book releases (do you think we are in store for stuff like splats for example).

I put that answer up in the Dnd Next thread via the current Rule of 3 column.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;530979Based on what you have seen estar, how do you think someone like me, who loved 2E, liked 3e but had issues with it, and hated 4e would react to the game?

75% chance you would like it. There are customization options including some that echo the options found in the early 2E era. But they haven't released the full range of options yet. Like the old saying the devil in the details. So far there are elements from every edition and some new ones. And they are all applied with a light touch.

Right now it looks very encouraging.

I just ran a playtest session with a bunch of old core old school gamers. While some mechanics definitely got ripped on, overall they were impressed with how the game flowed compared with their experiences with 3E and 4e.

For me I have to make an effort remember to use the D&D Next rules instead of the Swords & Wizardry/Majestic Wilderlands rules I use in my normal campaign. I do pretty much the same thing in both games in terms of combat, skill checks, ability checks, etc in the same amount of time.  The actual mechanics differ.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;530979Also has any of the playtest material given you a sense of what the plan may be for book releases (do you think we are in store for stuff like splats for example).

No not really, the documents are well formatted but with no illustrations. The only thing definite about what D&D Next products are going to look like is that the Cave of Chaos adventure is pretty much the original except with D&D Next stats and better yet occupies roughly the same page count as the original. The one line stat block has made a return.

So hopefully this means we get more adventure material per page than we did with 3e or 4e.

Quote from: James Gillen;530920Oh, you mean like that sequel to Highlander?

JG

That never fucking happened!  Got it?! ;)

Quote from: Drohem;530996That never fucking happened!  Got it?! ;)

Kinda like 4e?;):D

Quote from: Marleycat;530997Kinda like 4e?;):D

Even I'm not that cruel....  ;)

Quote from: Marleycat;530997Kinda like 4e?;):D

Kinda like how people keep insisting there's "other movies after the first two in the Alien franchise."

I don't know who these weirdos are, but I wish they'd quit making insane shit up.  Honestly, it's just embarrassing.  Some people have even gone to the lengths of showing me "stills" and "clips" that are so laughably bad I can't believe they'd humiliate themselves like that.

I'm just glad that 26 years later (!!!) we're getting a "prequel" to the other two Alien films.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;530999Kinda like how people keep insisting there's "other movies after the first two in the Alien franchise."

I don't know who these weirdos are, but I wish they'd quit making insane shit up.  Honestly, it's just embarrassing.  Some people have even gone to the lengths of showing me "stills" and "clips" that are so laughably bad I can't believe they'd humiliate themselves like that.

I'm just glad that 26 years later (!!!) we're getting a "prequel" to the other two Alien films.

If you think the mythical movies were bad, don't go look up unreleased concepts.  The original hybrid alien concept from 4 was supposed to have a very large and prominent vagina AND penis that was all out there in the open.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;530999Kinda like how people keep insisting there's "other movies after the first two in the Alien franchise."

I don't know who these weirdos are, but I wish they'd quit making insane shit up.  Honestly, it's just embarrassing.  Some people have even gone to the lengths of showing me "stills" and "clips" that are so laughably bad I can't believe they'd humiliate themselves like that.

I'm just glad that 26 years later (!!!) we're getting a "prequel" to the other two Alien films.

Har!

Prometheus looks very interesting though.

QuoteEven I'm not that cruel....

I am just ask TBP.;)

Quote from: thedungeondelver;530999Kinda like how people keep insisting there's "other movies after the first two in the Alien franchise."

I don't know who these weirdos are, but I wish they'd quit making insane shit up.  Honestly, it's just embarrassing.  Some people have even gone to the lengths of showing me "stills" and "clips" that are so laughably bad I can't believe they'd humiliate themselves like that.

A clear voice of reason! :)

Alien vs. Predator

:rolleyes:

Quote from: ggroy;531005Alien vs. Predator

:rolleyes:

I wish they would have made the movies like they did the comics back in 1990 or so.

But alas, no.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;531006I wish they would have made the movies like they did the comics back in 1990 or so.

But alas, no.

First movie looked like an episode of Stargate SG-1, but without any stargates.

Quote from: James Gillen;530920Oh, you mean like that sequel to Highlander?

JG

What? Which sequel? :eek:

:D

Quote from: Benoist;531011What? Which sequel? :eek:

:D

Sir Shithead?  :pundit:

Quote from: Marleycat;530997Kinda like 4e?;):D

What would be amusing is if WotC/Hasbro will not acknowledge the existence of 4E, in several years.  (ie.  Erased from WotC/Hasbro's official corporate history).

Quote from: ggroy;531015What would be amusing is if WotC/Hasbro will not acknowledge the existence of 4E, in several years.  (ie.  Erased from WotC/Hasbro's official corporate history).

It'll never happen.

Quote from: Marleycat;531016It'll never happen.

That's what I said before 4e got published.

Quote from: ggroy;531015What would be amusing is if WotC/Hasbro will not acknowledge the existence of 4E, in several years.  (ie.  Erased from WotC/Hasbro's official corporate history).

They've already said that one part of 4e they really want to keep is the 3 pillars.  I.e., every class should be equal in combat, interaction, and exploration.

Just my $.02, but if you need rules to make you feel like an equal contributor for the interaction part of the game, then that's on you as a shitty role-player and shouldn't need to be codified into actual rules.

Quote from: Benoist;531017That's what I said before 4e got published.

I wouldn't be upset if I were wrong but 5e will have elements of 4e in it. It has to or it will fail, like it or not there are plenty of people that like the game. And to be honest it does have some very good elements in it. Problem is they are far and few between the crap in my opinion.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;531018They've already said that one part of 4e they really want to keep is the 3 pillars.  I.e., every class should be equal in combat, interaction, and exploration.

Just my $.02, but if you need rules to make you feel like an equal contributor for the interaction part of the game, then that's on you as a shitty role-player and shouldn't need to be codified into actual rules.

This is one of my big problems with the game. The catering to the Cult of RAW. Didn't SKR mentioned somewhere that  4e was built expressly to close off all the loopholes that were the essence of earlier iterations of DnD? Or am I just imagining that?

Whatever happens - PAIZO still 'wins'.

Their flip-fold maps and map cards will work with EVERY edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Heck, even theirt flip-mat that is labeled as a 'Pathfinder Lodge' still can work for D&D as a nicer Inn or meeting place to stay at.

Also, PAIZO can keep going for at least another 5 to 8 years with the good will they earned over the past 4 or 5 years.

Their art is some of the best and people still have fond memories of their time publishing DRAGON and DUNGEON magazines.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;531022Whatever happens - PAIZO still 'wins'.

Their flip-fold maps and map cards will work with EVERY edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Heck, even theirt flip-mat that is labeled as a 'Pathfinder Lodge' still can work for D&D as a nicer Inn or meeting place to stay at.

Also, PAIZO can keep going for at least another 5 to 8 years with the good will they earned over the past 4 or 5 years.

Their art is some of the best and people still have fond memories of their time publishing DRAGON and DUNGEON magazines.


- Ed C.

Exactly. While WotC has the reputation of being filthy money grubbers.

I never thought much of the 3rd edition rules but it was clear that with letting Gary and Rob work with them on Greyhawk stuff for Dungeon Magazine (and Dragon) Paizo's hearts were in the right place.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;531018They've already said that one part of 4e they really want to keep is the 3 pillars.  I.e., every class should be equal in combat, interaction, and exploration.

I thought they'd said that each class would have a basic capability in all three pillars, so that everyone could contribute at least something, not that they'd be 'equal'. But I'm not sure where I saw that, so I could be wrong.

Quote from: Kaldric;531125I thought they'd said that each class would have a basic capability in all three pillars, so that everyone could contribute at least something, not that they'd be 'equal'. But I'm not sure where I saw that, so I could be wrong.

I think you're right though.  They're also saying you could swap out a degree of effectiveness to focus in another. That's definitely old school, not 4e.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;531018They've already said that one part of 4e they really want to keep is the 3 pillars.  I.e., every class should be equal in combat, interaction, and exploration.

Just my $.02, but if you need rules to make you feel like an equal contributor for the interaction part of the game, then that's on you as a shitty role-player and shouldn't need to be codified into actual rules.

That's crazy talk. You need to roll Diplomacy or its unfair on the gamers who have no social skills... :)

(I am kidding, but I've seen this fairly commonly at e.g. rpg.net. or the gaming den. Heaven forbid someone be able to use a player skill other than Character Optimization).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;531141That's crazy talk. You need to roll Diplomacy or its unfair on the gamers who have no social skills... :)

(I am kidding, but I've seen this fairly commonly at e.g. rpg.net. or the gaming den. Heaven forbid someone be able to use a player skill other than Character Optimization).

You may be kidding but between the slavish worship at the altar of The Cult of RAW, the adherence to spotlight gaming, and the unnatural desire for literal balance between all classes by a subset of the fanbase we get games like 4e. A game that probably satisfies 10% of the playerbase that would play Dnd if it allowed more types of playstyles.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;531141That's crazy talk. You need to roll Diplomacy or its unfair on the gamers who have no social skills... :)

(I am kidding, but I've seen this fairly commonly at e.g. rpg.net. or the gaming den. Heaven forbid someone be able to use a player skill other than Character Optimization).

Exactly. Without the explicit numbers on my character sheet, my PC is nothing! Actually, we should expand this to even words! We should invent things like "powers," "advantages/disadvantages," and "aspects".

Hush, look down to your sheet, the GM is speaking. We gotta figure out what we're allowed to do.
;)

Quote from: Opaopajr;531181Exactly. Without the explicit numbers on my character sheet, my PC is nothing! Actually, we should expand this to even words! We should invent things like "powers," "advantages/disadvantages," and "aspects".

Hush, look down to your sheet, the GM is speaking. We gotta figure out what we're allowed to do.
;)

Blasphemy! You sure you're not an undercover 4erry?:D

Quote from: Opaopajr;531181Exactly. Without the explicit numbers on my character sheet, my PC is nothing! Actually, we should expand this to even words! We should invent things like "powers," "advantages/disadvantages," and "aspects".

Hush, look down to your sheet, the GM is speaking. We gotta figure out what we're allowed to do.
;)

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;531141That's crazy talk. You need to roll Diplomacy or its unfair on the gamers who have no social skills... :)

(I am kidding, but I've seen this fairly commonly at e.g. rpg.net. or the gaming den. Heaven forbid someone be able to use a player skill other than Character Optimization).

Then again, you don't expect players to actually RP every aspect of combat or lockpicking, do you? A certain middle ground between the two should be achieved, imo.

We need permission from On High to explore our imagination. It's in the by-laws. If you do it wrong, there'll be Imbalance and something will break! Then people will be offended and sad. Those are the two worst feelings in the universe.

Quote from: Rincewind1;531186Then again, you don't expect players to actually RP every aspect of combat or lockpicking, do you? A certain middle ground between the two should be achieved, imo.

Of course it's just when it's taken to either extreme is where the silliness ensues.

Quote from: Opaopajr;531187We need permission from On High to explore our imagination. It's in the by-laws. If you do it wrong, there'll be Imbalance and something will break! Then people will be offended and sad. Those are the two worst feelings in the universe.

A tabletop pen-and-paper rpg game designed by Spock or Tuvok (or a Vulcan in general)?

:pundit:

Quote from: Opaopajr;531187We need permission from On High to explore our imagination. It's in the by-laws. If you do it wrong, there'll be Imbalance and something will break! Then people will be offended and sad. Those are the two worst feelings in the universe.

Let them eat cake.

Quote from: Rincewind1;531186Then again, you don't expect players to actually RP every aspect of combat or lockpicking, do you? A certain middle ground between the two should be achieved, imo.

Of course, you should role play everything. Character generation is just an exercise in brain storming. It should have no bearing in actual play.

My favorite is role playing my character suffering from disease, like the pox. Gives me a chance to lay on the floor. Good for my back.

Quote from: Opaopajr;531187We need permission from On High to explore our imagination. It's in the by-laws. If you do it wrong, there'll be Imbalance and something will break! Then people will be offended and sad. Those are the two worst feelings in the universe.

I protest sir! The worst feeling in the universe is no gaming, EVER. :)

Quote from: Opaopajr;531191Of course, you should role play everything. Character generation is just an exercise in brain storming. It should have no bearing in actual play.

My favorite is role playing my character suffering from disease, like the pox. Gives me a chance to lay on the floor. Good for my back.

Mhm. If I ever visit Britain, I'll be sure to take one of my buddy's swords with me, so you can RP actual wounds as well.

Without sarcasm, what bugs me is people often forget the human element. This doesn't apply to just games, let alone to RPGs. And given that RPGs are a remarkable game where wild human imagination can be structured enough into a game that can fit on a table, the human element should be one of the most celebrated aspects of it.

Without structure, you don't need to buy any products to play in your imagination. But good luck with arguments when people who play together disagree. However if obsessed with structure, you run the risk of forgetting that it's the freedom of nigh-infinite level of response that makes this game special.

It's the humans you can welcome into this game and have them leave having a good time that matters. So KISS design becomes important, because (even though it doesn't solve everything) it helps ground design to remember games are ideally about people at play. Once it starts to become so oblique that it becomes work, you've already defeated your purpose.

Edit: Which probably explains why Paizo is so wisely cultivating good will. It remembered the People. Can we say WotC or Hasbro did the same? Will it learn and do so now?

I hope so because a Dnd that's well liked and the company that produces it also well liked and trusted makes for healthy and vibrant hobby.

Quote from: Opaopajr;531198Can we say WotC or Hasbro did the same? Will it learn and do so now?

They see the customer as THE enemy?  :rolleyes:

Quote from: ggroy;530975Very much.

Or perhaps the Star Trek V movie.

Well, at least Star Trek fans can keep their memories consistent.

Which is really strange because Trek producers and scriptwriters can't.

JG

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;530671Pundit, I don't want to burst your bubble, as I know you've pitched your tent to 5e and all, but...you're wasting your time. 5e is doomed to fail. It will fare no better than 4e did, and probably do worse. And it certainly won't defeat Pathfinder in the marketplace either. Does anyone really believe that Pathfinder is just going to magically lose half of its player base to 5e? I don't. I'm sorry, but it's just not realistic. An ever-increasing number of people just don't trust WoTC any more (for valid reasons), while Paizo, on the other hand, has a strong reputation simply by virtue of treating its customers right, and by the strength of its adventure paths for an edition that tons of people actually play.

I'm studying for a test, so I really don't have time to fully explain the other reasons why 5e is destined to fail (at least compared to Pathfinder), but I'll just say....WoTC is gonna blow it. You cannot please every proponent of every edition with a single game. If you attempt to do so, you risk creating a highly-diluted gaming experience that resembles wet cardboard. When creating a roleplaying game, you must draw a line in the sand somewhere, and make design choices to create both a coherent game, and a specific implied meta-setting. In doing so, they'll inevitably alienate huge chunks of gamers out there, because the D&D player base is totally fragmented right now.

I hate to post and run, as I want to get into a more detailed discussion about how AD&D and the OSR can potentially affect the hobby and the market, and also how the OGL was part of the key to 3e's success, and much, much more...but I don't have time. I really need to pass this test, so I'll just delve into this stuff later...

But yeah. 5e vs Pathfinder? Pathfinder wins. :pundit:

~Sacrificial Lamb

That was a fine bit of cheerleading on your part, but it doesn't really leave much to rebut in terms of meaningful argument.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;531575That was a fine bit of cheerleading on your part, but it doesn't really leave much to rebut in terms of meaningful argument.

RPGPundit

Thank God you said it. I was thinking I must be offbase because I wanted to call bullshit but there was nothing to argue beyond "great so you believe your own hype".

Quote from: RPGPundit;531575That was a fine bit of cheerleading on your part, but it doesn't really leave much to rebut in terms of meaningful argument.

RPGPundit

I think those arguing that a game line will lose half of its customers bear the onus of arguing their case, rather than those who don't believe such a dramatic decline will automatically occur.

Also, you could address the point I made that the core of Paizo's business model is its adventure paths, and the Pathfinder system books essentially support that stream. In other words, it has loyal customers not because they hate WotC, but because they love Paizo's adventure paths and are happy to stick with the system that supports those products.

Quote from: RPGPundit;531575That was a fine bit of cheerleading on your part, but it doesn't really leave much to rebut in terms of meaningful argument.

RPGPundit

Pretty much. The argument boils down to "I don't trust WotC to do a good job enough."

Quote from: Benoist;531711Pretty much. The argument boils down to "I don't trust WotC to do a good job enough."

Which is not too far-fetched an argument, mind you; it certainly finds abundant support in recent experience.

I for one hope 5e does well. But I can't deny I'm a bit skeptical.

Certainly: WotC has a recent history of screwing things up.

That's what they want to change, after all.

Now whether history will repeat itself... we'll see, I guess.

Quote from: Benoist;531725Certainly: WotC has a recent history of screwing things up.

That's what they want to change, after all.

Now whether history will repeat itself... we'll see, I guess.

Murphy's Law.  :D

Quote from: ggroy;531727Murphy's Law.  :D

I'd rather use Le Chatelier's - Braun's principle as a metaphor here: Things will get worse before they get better.

;)

Quote from: RPGPundit;531575That was a fine bit of cheerleading on your part, but it doesn't really leave much to rebut in terms of meaningful argument.

RPGPundit

Dude, you implied that Paizo was going to suddenly lose half its customers to 5e. Granted, you did use a little qualifier there, but you still did imply it. Here are your words:

Quote from: RPGPunditAlso, I'll predict right here that IF 5e succeeds at that design goal stated above, Pathfinder will lose at least half its customers to 5e; all the ones who left D&D out of spite because it wouldn't be what they wanted it to be.

The problem I see with Pathfinder is that a very significant portion of its fanbase are people who'd rather be playing D&D, if they felt like they could. They want a D&D that is currently supported, that supports their playstyle, and that isn't 4e. Pathfinder is just the cheap floozy they're shacking up with until their wife gets off the sauce and they can stand to live with her again. As soon as that happens, they'll dump the substitute like yesterday's news.

RPGPundit

If you make an assertion that this could realistically happen, then you need to support that statement with common sense. But you haven't. Instead....you made an outlandish statement, unsupported by reality. You might have been right about the necessity of the D&D trademark three to five years ago...but now? Now, people are supporting other games that more properly support the "D&D experience" than 4e ever did. The result of this is that WoTC has weakened the D&D trademark.

The truth is, even if they created a game that fulfilled the needs of all the "edition warriors" and fully embraced the OGL again, it still wouldn't stop the market momentum gained and earned by Paizo. Do you know why that is? I could tell you, but maybe I'll let you figure that one out.

Look....Pundit, I know you have a vested interest in making this edition succeed, so I sympathize. However, my belief is that 5e might have as much market success as 4e did, and that's about it. No more than that. In truth, the only tactic that WoTC could use to help 5e spread virally, would be if they fully embraced the OGL again. The problem is that I don't see the people running the show to be open-minded enough to do that. They're just not smart enough.

Never underestimate how much the OGL contributed to the success of 3e.

Quote from: BenoistPretty much. The argument boils down to "I don't trust WotC to do a good job enough."

Trust? WoTC hasn't earned that trust. They just haven't. I mean, let's be honest here. They've unintentionally done everything they can in recent years to sabotage any good will they previously had. Now that doesn't mean I'm calling for a boycott of WoTC's products, or anything else so insanely retarded. What I am saying, is that there was a culture war in the world of roleplaying games, a "battle royale" for the hearts and minds of gamers, and the "soul" of D&D.

WoTC lost that conflict. :pundit:

And so did the hobby. The hobby fractured into various overzealous gaming camps, while other gamers just stopped playing entirely out of frustration. At this point, Paizo would have to suddenly do something extremely stupid to lose in the marketplace. And again, I just don't see that happening... :cool:

Quote from: The Butcher;531720Which is not too far-fetched an argument, mind you; it certainly finds abundant support in recent experience.

I for one hope 5e does well. But I can't deny I'm a bit skeptical.

I'm sort of in the place where I think the writers will do a bang up job, but ultimately the dynamics of the Hasbro driven organization will screw things up.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;531768Trust? WoTC hasn't earned that trust. They just haven't. I mean, let's be honest here. They've unintentionally done everything they can in recent years to sabotage any good will they previously had.

Keep seeing people post that they are butt-hurt by WotC, but I just don't understand why.  I've been purchasing WotC products since 1994, and they haven't caused me any ill-will in all that time.  I'm not that big a fan of 4e, and certainly don't like the proposed 4e playstyle at all, but I'm not all whiny that the company harmed any goodwill.

Did people get addle-brained from the crappy marketing hype in the 4e buildup?  They make a product.  If I like it, I will buy it.  If I don't like it, there are ample substitute products.  What the hell does crap about goodwill have to do with whether or not I will like a product?

Quote from: Old One Eye;531779Keep seeing people post that they are butt-hurt by WotC, but I just don't understand why.  I've been purchasing WotC products since 1994, and they haven't caused me any ill-will in all that time.  I'm not that big a fan of 4e, and certainly don't like the proposed 4e playstyle at all, but I'm not all whiny that the company harmed any goodwill.

Did people get addle-brained from the crappy marketing hype in the 4e buildup?  They make a product.  If I like it, I will buy it.  If I don't like it, there are ample substitute products.  What the hell does crap about goodwill have to do with whether or not I will like a product?

Dude, I'm not a "hater". But what's the point in becoming emotionally invested in a game that hasn't even been released yet? At this point, many people will not feel the urge to put much time, money, and energy in a game that will just be another footnote in an endless edition treadmill.

Another topic is the "edition wars" inspired by WoTC, thus perpetuating by a ton of online negativity compared to the release of 3e. I don't know if you've noticed it, but in the past five years, Internet culture on rpg message boards has changed.....in a very negative way. Since 4e has been released, it has actually become noticeably more "unfun" to visit places such as RPGnet and ENWorld. In this day of the Internet, this type of bullshit does affect the hobby. Maybe not ten years ago....but now? Absolutely.

It's easy to forget this, but people got really excited about 3e, partly because of the OGL. They were given access to a nearly unrestricted license to publish their own d20/OGL games. This gave people a personal investment in 3e, and made people feel like they were part of something larger than themselves. Yes, a ton of shit got published. But a ton of awesome stuff got published too.

WoTC will probably not support the OGL like they did before. And the fragmentation of the hobby hasn't gone away. At all. Pointing out this truth isn't "whining", nor is it an indication of "butthurt". It's simply a statement of truth.

Just for the record, I'd like to stress that you should absolutely buy any game that you like. If 5e floats your boat, then go get it, and play the Hell out of it. But don't be surprised when the fragmentation of the hobby continues, with WoTC having to keep fighting like crazy to retain market share. Really, this is all just common sense. :cool:

Quote from: The Butcher;531720Which is not too far-fetched an argument, mind you; it certainly finds abundant support in recent experience.

I for one hope 5e does well. But I can't deny I'm a bit skeptical.

So am I.  On the other hand unlike some people I didn't HATE 4E... it was just so much unlike what I'd come to expect from what came before that I didn't see it as an iteration of the same game.

JG

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;531778I'm sort of in the place where I think the writers will do a bang up job, but ultimately the dynamics of the Hasbro driven organization will screw things up.

That's where I'm leaning.  ;)

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;531893So am I.  On the other hand unlike some people I didn't HATE 4E... it was just so much unlike what I'd come to expect from what came before that I didn't see it as an iteration of the same game.

Yeah, I'm on the same camp.

I wouldn't go so far as to declare 4e "not a RPG", that's just silly. I've played a bit of 4e, and I've even had fun with it... but I'm quite partial to the older editions, with their focus on exploration and discovery, as opposed to 4e's emphasis on combat.

I think one important thing to note is that this time WoTC is clearly trying very hard to reach out and right wrongs; their entire public-relations format has done a 180º.  That in itself speaks to the fact that they're now starting to "get it".  They're not doing everything perfectly, and it doesn't automatically translate to 5e being a great game, but making efforts to recover the hobby's goodwill is an important thing.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James Gillen;528190No, Pathfinder is the well-maintained girl who looks like the wife did before she let herself go, and unlike the wife, treats the guy decently.  Whether the guy dumps the substitute depends on IF the old wife shapes up, and that remains to be seen.

JG

Bet analogy ever.  But I think the new GF treated her man so well that it might be closer than you think.

I'd be surprised if 5e isn't, at the very least, a solidly good game. A failure of the scale of 4e is likely to focus the Wizards' minds on producing a game that can reclaim the ground lost to Paizo. The humility won't hurt.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;531768Look....Pundit, I know you have a vested interest in making this edition succeed, so I sympathize.

You should never have taken the money Pundit...you're forever gonna get this type of response re: 5e.

Quote from: RPGPundit;532120I think one important thing to note is that this time WoTC is clearly trying very hard to reach out and right wrongs; their entire public-relations format has done a 180º.  That in itself speaks to the fact that they're now starting to "get it".  They're not doing everything perfectly, and it doesn't automatically translate to 5e being a great game, but making efforts to recover the hobby's goodwill is an important thing.

RPGPundit

Cheap marketing tricks and distancing 4e audiences (as sweet as that may be) are a one - eighty for you? Please. They are catering to your and old - school tastes now, but that doesn't mean they are being quite effectively genuine. The shoe's just on the other foot.

Quote from: RPGPundit;532120I think one important thing to note is that this time WoTC is clearly trying very hard to reach out and right wrongs; their entire public-relations format has done a 180º.  That in itself speaks to the fact that they're now starting to "get it".  They're not doing everything perfectly, and it doesn't automatically translate to 5e being a great game, but making efforts to recover the hobby's goodwill is an important thing.

RPGPundit

The only genius in their PR campaign is in buying the silence while at the same time attempting to pump up the egos of people who have a position of influence in opinion-making in internet-land.  The pathetic thing is that while that qualifies as genius for WOTC marketing, its actually one of the oldest tricks in the book.

I have no idea how 5e will turn out, and I mostly don't care.  I doubt I will be playing it anyhow.  I am happy with the game I have, LOTFP.  However, I will say this:

1.  Anyone I've ever seen who tried to be all things to all people failed miserably.

2.  5E is being positioned as all things to all gamers of any edition of D&D.

3.  WOTC post-3.0 has a history of failing miserably.  

My prediction:  5e will fail miserably.

5e will fail to deliver its promises.  Whether or not it will fail as a game is yet to be seen.  I'm skeptical of Pundit's claims about the developers learning their lessons, but he is more privvy to such information than I.  Hopefully he is right.  Also, accusing him of shilling for WotC is low.  Doubtful he would do that.

Quote from: B.T.;5321355e will fail to deliver its promises.  Whether or not it will fail as a game is yet to be seen.  I'm skeptical of Pundit's claims about the developers learning their lessons, but he is more privvy to such information than I.  Hopefully he is right.  Also, accusing him of shilling for WotC is low.  Doubtful he would do that.

I don't think Pundit is a shill, if that was directed at me.  I just think it is a shame he took the money and signed the agreement, first because he will be accused of being a shill, and second because I'd rather have him, and all other opinion-makers, not censored by The Man.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;532136I don't think Pundit is a shill, if that was directed at me.  I just think it is a shame he took the money and signed the agreement, first because he will be accused of being a shill, and second because I'd rather have him, and all other opinion-makers, not censored by The Man.

I don't think Pundit is a shill either, but I do think that he's being used and manipulated by WoTC in an underhanded way to help establish "legitimacy" to the new edition. Yes...I said it, Pundit. Sorry. :(

Quote from: B.T.5e will fail to deliver its promises. Whether or not it will fail as a game is yet to be seen. I'm skeptical of Pundit's claims about the developers learning their lessons, but he is more privvy to such information than I. Hopefully he is right. Also, accusing him of shilling for WotC is low. Doubtful he would do that.

Pundit wouldn't. We don't have to worry about that. But I do agree that 5e will fail to deliver its promises.

On the other hand....as far as success in the market goes, 5e might enjoy some degree of success, but it won't do ridiculously well. Not better than 4e. And it certainly won't match the success of either 3e or AD&D.

Quote from: JoethelawyerThe only genius in their PR campaign is in buying the silence while at the same time attempting to pump up the egos of people who have a position of influence in opinion-making in internet-land. The pathetic thing is that while that qualifies as genius for WOTC marketing, its actually one of the oldest tricks in the book.

I must be getting really cynical, because I'm starting to agree with you...

Quote from: JoethelawyerI have no idea how 5e will turn out, and I mostly don't care. I doubt I will be playing it anyhow. I am happy with the game I have, LOTFP. However, I will say this:

1. Anyone I've ever seen who tried to be all things to all people failed miserably.

2. 5E is being positioned as all things to all gamers of any edition of D&D.

3. WOTC post-3.0 has a history of failing miserably.

My prediction: 5e will fail miserably.

I really can't argue with you. I'm deeply skeptical as well. I hope you're wrong, but I fear that you're right. :(

It's way too early to make predictions about anything dealing with 5e and expect it to be taken with more than a grain of salt by the target audience (people like me who have no dog in the hunt), seriously.

And the Pundit has no reason to lie, it would hurt him professionally. He obviously knows more than the general public so I'll tend believe him far more than some guy of the street like myself.

Joe: I was referring to SL's post.  Even if he isn't insinuating Pundit is a shill, others will.

Quote from: James Gillen;531893So am I.  On the other hand unlike some people I didn't HATE 4E... it was just so much unlike what I'd come to expect from what came before that I didn't see it as an iteration of the same game.

JG

I would have loved to see 3.5 go against 4E if 4E had been released as a completely separate game by another company and with a different name. How would it have fared? Without the branding of the 'D&D' name attached, would fans have flocked to it?

I will be kind and not argue whether it is a RPG or not. But in my opinion it is not a version of D&D. Oddly the best version of D&D in my opinion isn't even called D&D any longer, it is called Pathfinder.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;532129You should never have taken the money Pundit...you're forever gonna get this type of response re: 5e.

Except where murder or involuntary sex is concerned, I never disparage "taking the money." :D

JG

Quote from: Tetsubo;532203I would have loved to see 3.5 go against 4E if 4E had been released as a completely separate game by another company and with a different name. How would it have fared? Without the branding of the 'D&D' name attached, would fans have flocked to it?

I will be kind and not argue whether it is a RPG or not. But in my opinion it is not a version of D&D. Oddly the best version of D&D in my opinion isn't even called D&D any longer, it is called Pathfinder.

I really do think that a lot of the stigma lies in the fact that 4th was marketed as D&D but was fundamentally different in operation.  If it hadn't been called D&D it wouldn't have gotten the huge boost, but it also wouldn't have been so much of a disappointment, especially to the mondo-global megacorp that expected it to be a cash cow on the order of their other properties.

JG

Quote from: Joethelawyer;532129You should never have taken the money Pundit...you're forever gonna get this type of response re: 5e.

My "vested interest" does exist, but its not that I'm being paid by WoTC.  Its that I have a duty as a gamer to try to make D&D's next edition better than the previous one, to restore D&D's value as the core game of the RPG hobby.  Its that I want D&D to succeed.

We ALL have that vested interest, or should have if we actually give a fuck about the hobby. I just happen to be in a position of influence where I can actually do more to make this happen.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;532140I don't think Pundit is a shill either, but I do think that he's being used and manipulated by WoTC in an underhanded way to help establish "legitimacy" to the new edition. Yes...I said it, Pundit. Sorry. :(

The fact that they're using me is in and of itself, however, a sign that they've changed.  Let's pretend for a moment that I wasn't exchanging small mountains of emails with mike Mearls on a near-daily basis, and having a direct influence over what's being written.  Let's assume its all a scam, I'm actually writing to famed Mearls-impersonator Pepito Suarez, and everything I write gets thrown into the trash folder the second it arrives.  The whole thing is just an illusion requiring a tremendous amount of time and effort (and Suarez's rather large paycheck) just to fool little old me.

Even there, even in that worst-case scenario for me personally, it would STILL mean a massive sea change in WoTC.
Why? Because they've gone from wanting to make a "gamist" rpg that appeals to WoW fans and would be likely to consider Ron Edwards as one of its intellectual influences in design, to wanting to distance themselves from that to the point that they hire someone like me, to show people how they AREN'T LIKE THAT ANYMORE.  

Not just me, but Rob, Zak, and James too. Even if they weren't intending to listen to a word we said after paying us all big bucks, it would still mean they were desperately trying to change their overall attitude and public image.  And trust me, they are listening to us; to me at least, but I would assume to all the others I named too.
 
RPGPundit

I believe that anyone who is a long term role player will at least look at 5th Edition - moreso because long term players are well enough versed in the industry to recognize that Monte Cook and others from more successful eras of the game are back, and they know what people are playing now (Pathfinder, OSR, etc). MC for example knows his Pathfinder - he's come to the last few PaizoCons for example.

Likewise, long termers can afford at least a PHB. So lots of PHBs will sell, but that will not mean all that much, because many of us don't stop playing games we like. I think what is required is convincing DMs to want to run it in their groups.

What I predict is that neither game will particularly grow the number of people playing tabletop RPGs. The last few 'cons where Ive heard the question asked to industry panels (and included some folks involved with both camps), none had a real answer to the question that hordes of young kids no longer seem that interested. 4E at least was a lesson on how to fail at trying to convert the MMO generation.

Quote from: Lynn;532745I believe that anyone who is a long term role player will at least look at 5th Edition - moreso because long term players are well enough versed in the industry to recognize that Monte Cook and others from more successful eras of the game are back, and they know what people are playing now (Pathfinder, OSR, etc). MC for example knows his Pathfinder - he's come to the last few PaizoCons for example.

Likewise, long termers can afford at least a PHB. So lots of PHBs will sell, but that will not mean all that much, because many of us don't stop playing games we like. I think what is required is convincing DMs to want to run it in their groups.

What I predict is that neither game will particularly grow the number of people playing tabletop RPGs. The last few 'cons where Ive heard the question asked to industry panels (and included some folks involved with both camps), none had a real answer to the question that hordes of young kids no longer seem that interested. 4E at least was a lesson on how to fail at trying to convert the MMO generation.

I am a long term role-player. since 1978. And I have zero interest in 5E. The launch of 4E burned all the bridges that connected me to WotC. If anyone likes 5E, more power to them. But I'll be passing.

The PR damage WotC wrought during 4e's lead-up and release cannot be overstated.

Quote from: Endless Flight;532843The PR damage WotC wrought during 4e's lead-up and release cannot be underestimated.

But the power of the Ring could not be undone.

Quote from: Endless Flight;532843The PR damage WotC wrought during 4e's lead-up and release cannot be overstated.

Yes, its an uphill battle to try to undo that.  But I do think that it can be undone, if they're smart about it.

RPGPundit

If 5e is a decent game (which I expect it will be, for reasons mentioned previously), past sins will be largely forgiven/forgotten.

If Wizards are really smart, they'll re-adopt the OGL.

I don't see them doing the second but I wouldn't be shocked if you're right about the first. Maybe a more realistic hope is that they adopt something in the middle ground between GSL and OGL.

You know, this notion of people hating (or loving) WotC is way overblown. It's an internet forum thing.

Most people who play D&D, in any iteration, don't hang out on internet forums arguing about this company, or that PR campaign, or even this edition versus that edition. They just play. Of the 10 people I know who played D&D (or Pathfinder) in the last year, only myself and one other have spent even a minute on an online RPG forum. The rest don't give a fuck about WotC, or RPGNet, or ENWorld (if they're even aware they exist).

5E will fail or succeed on its merit as a game. Pathfinder will fail or succeed on the merit of Paizo's adventure lines. All the internet speculation is just so much jabbering by forum junkies.

Quote from: Haffrung;5330475E will fail or succeed on its merit as a game. Pathfinder will fail or succeed on the merit of Paizo's adventure lines. All the internet speculation is just so much jabbering by forum junkies.

Saddle up Haffrung ;)

I am pretty confident in Paizo's ability to run their business. At one point, they had the rug pulled out from under their feet when they got the Dragon and Dungeon magazine licenses pulled - they turned around and created a commercially viable competitor to D&D, then used that to help launch other book publishing ventures.

D&D is not only the game but also the related franchises - books, licenseable IP and more, along with brand power and a much larger company behind them.

If this were two companies making commercial software or powertools or some other type of non-entertainment product, I would also discount armchair quarterbacking and people with deep resentments.

Pathfinder has often developed their game by following 4e's lead, but masking 4e ideas under a haze of awful writing so that the game still "feels" like D&D3. Presumably D&D Next will give them a new box of toys to break and then duct-tape back together.

I'm pessimistic about the idea that WotC can reclaim most of the fanbase who are disgruntled about 4e. Once people have gotten into their heads that they've been betraaayed! it's hard to come back from that no matter what you do for them.

Quote from: Dodger;533010If Wizards are really smart, they'll re-adopt the OGL.

If 5e is OGL (I hope so), you can believe that I'll be contacting Jeff Dee, Erol Otus, and Larry Elmore for artwork for adventure modules.  No fucking minis required!  ;)

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;533600If 5e is OGL (I hope so), you can believe that I'll be contacting Jeff Dee, Erol Otus, and Larry Elmore for artwork for adventure modules.  No fucking minis required!  ;)

Hell yeah!! Burn the minis!

I love the smell of burning plastic in the morning. Smells like . . . victory!

I bailed on WoTC over 4E. I wasn't a 3E edition warrior, I bought 4E and played it for a year and it left me cold. I took up Pathfinder. Last year, tired of the complexities of Pathfinder/3.5 and wanting to return to my gaming roots, I bought into Basic Fantasy and I and my players have been happy since. It has been some years since I bought a WoTC product.

I cut my teeth on Basic D&D and AD&D and the bottom line is that D&D has a place in who I am.

[cringeworthy analogy]Forgive the following, apalling analogy, I love D&D and when 4E let me down it was like a girlfriend who had become so fucked up that the relationship couldn't continue, but inside I knew I'd always love her (I warned you that the analogy was going to be a stinker). Now she's showing promising signs of having got her shit together and trying to clean up her act. I'm cautious about it, but what I'm seeing so far is encouraging. If she's making this effort I'm ready to give her another chance because I know that if it works out I'll be happy. I'm hoping that 5E will bring D&D back to me and, for now, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.[/cringeworthy analogy]

Quote from: Orpheo;533634I bailed on WoTC over 4E. I wasn't a 3E edition warrior, I bought 4E and played it for a year and it left me cold. I took up Pathfinder. Last year, tired of the complexities of Pathfinder/3.5 and wanting to return to my gaming roots, I bought into Basic Fantasy and I and my players have been happy since. It has been some years since I bought a WoTC product.

I cut my teeth on Basic D&D and AD&D and the bottom line is that D&D has a place in who I am.

[cringeworthy analogy]Forgive the following, apalling analogy, I love D&D and when 4E let me down it was like a girlfriend who had become so fucked up that the relationship couldn't continue, but inside I knew I'd always love her (I warned you that the analogy was going to be a stinker). Now she's showing promising signs of having got her shit together and trying to clean up her act. I'm cautious about it, but what I'm seeing so far is encouraging. If she's making this effort I'm ready to give her another chance because I know that if it works out I'll be happy. I'm hoping that 5E will bring D&D back to me and, for now, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.[/cringeworthy analogy]

Your experience mirrors mine and my reaction to 5e is pretty much the same, cringe worthy analogies aside.:)

Though I do play Pathfinder or Fantasy Craft as time allows but I yearn for simpler games so more and more OSRIC stuff or related is catching my interest.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533582Pathfinder has often developed their game by following 4e's lead, but masking 4e ideas under a haze of awful writing so that the game still "feels" like D&D3. Presumably D&D Next will give them a new box of toys to break and then duct-tape back together.

.

Do you have some specific examples?

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533582Pathfinder has often developed their game by following 4e's lead, but masking 4e ideas under a haze of awful writing so that the game still "feels" like D&D3.

Got anything you can show as support for this looney claim?


EDIT: Damnit, Brendan! Beat me by a minute!

Quote from: 1989;533614Hell yeah!! Burn the minis!

I love the smell of burning plastic in the morning. Smells like . . . victory!

Burning metal.

Quote from: ggroy;533654Burning metal.

More like "melting" metal.:D

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;533647Do you have some specific examples?

Quote from: PathfinderGreater Vital Strike (Combat)

You can make a single attack that deals incredible damage.

Prerequisites: Improved Vital Strike, Vital Strike, base attack bonus +16.

Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon's damage dice for the attack four times and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.

Quote from: Pathfinder, translated into 4eseAt-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 4[W] + Strength modifier damage.

And also:

QuoteAntagonize

Whether with biting remarks or hurtful words, you are adept at making creatures angry with you.

Benefit: You can make Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to make creatures respond to you with hostility. No matter which skill you use, antagonizing a creature takes a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and has a DC equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower. Before you make these checks, you may make a Sense Motive check (DC 20) as a swift action to gain an insight bonus on these Diplomacy or Intimidate checks equal to your Charisma bonus until the end of your next turn. The benefits you gain for this check depend on the skill you use. This is a mind-affecting effect.

Diplomacy: You fluster your enemy. For the next minute, the target takes a –2 penalty on all attacks rolls made against creatures other than you and has a 10% spell failure chance on all spells that do not target you or that have you within their area of effect.

Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you, make a ranged attack
against you, target you with a spell, or include you in the area of a spell. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot attack you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature attacks you. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.

Hell of a lot of words to basically give fighters limited-use powers without cries of "Nooo! My associated verisimmmersionilitude!"

Then there's the gunslinger, a martial class whose offense is based on inflicting status effects with trick shots. It's sort of like a 4e class, in the same way that a child repeatedly vomiting while giving a book report is sort of like an episode of Prairie Home Companion.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533672And also:



Hell of a lot of words to basically give fighters limited-use powers without cries of "Nooo! My associated verisimmmersionilitude!"

Then there's the gunslinger, a martial class whose offense is based on inflicting status effects with trick shots. It's sort of like a 4e class, in the same way that a child repeatedly vomiting while giving a book report is sort of like an episode of Prairie Home Companion.

I will have to take your word for it as I dont play or care for pathfinder. But the first example is not the kind of power people complained about with 4e. The verisimilitude power arises with encounter and daily martials.

I am not a huge fan of the second power, but that also isn't an encounter or daily and appears to avoid the mistake 4e taunt makes.

So not really seeing your argument here.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;533673I will have to take your word for it as I dont play or care for pathfinder. But the first example is not the kind of power people complained about with 4e.

Not really relevant. The argument is that as Pathfinder develops, they've done a lot of things that 4e also does, only they state them in much more cumbersome language.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533675Not really relevant. The argument is that as Pathfinder develops, they've done a lot of things that 4e also does, only they state them in much more cumbersome language.

Except that you have yet to provide any proof.

The Greater Vital Strike feat is not proof because your "conversion" to 4E does not include the need for prerequisites before that one can be used. It is not even an actual trick in 4E.

The feat Antagonize just shows the feat, you do not even give the example of what 4E trick it is supposed to be a copy of.

C'mon, try harder. This is just too easy to disprove.

I see a big difference between x per day powers and encounter powers. The former allows the player to use them however they will, in combat or out of combat in any combination. Where encounter powers get to be used once in a given encounter and most have no use in out of combat scenerios.

That's not even getting into the severe disconnect that the concept of martial dailies cause.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533675Not really relevant. The argument is that as Pathfinder develops, they've done a lot of things that 4e also does, only they state them in much more cumbersome language.

Wonder if they're doing this, to avoid infringing on WotC's copyrights, trademarks, etc ...  

:rolleyes:

What would be amusing is if there's enough "open gaming content" in the Pathfinder SRD documents which imitates 4E D&D well enough, that it is easy to write a 4E clone from reverse engineering already existing "open gaming content" stuff.

:pundit:

Quote from: ggroy;533684What would be amusing is if there's enough "open gaming content" in the Pathfinder SRD documents which imitates 4E D&D well enough, that it is easy to write a 4E clone from reverse engineering already existing "open gaming content" stuff.

:pundit:

I don't see why a 4E clone couldn't be written using the d20 SRD and OGL. It is all there except for the crappy advertising/PR campaign.

Quote from: jeff37923;533679Except that you have yet to provide any proof.

The Greater Vital Strike feat is not proof because your "conversion" to 4E does not include the need for prerequisites before that one can be used. It is not even an actual trick in 4E.

The feat Antagonize just shows the feat, you do not even give the example of what 4E trick it is supposed to be a copy of.

C'mon, try harder. This is just too easy to disprove.

No! Bad Jeff! Come back here with those goalposts! I'm not positing that Pathfinder devs are secretly trying to duplicate 4e individual powers exactly. Just pointing out that Pathfinder is doing plenty of things that 4e did first, only their design is less unified and thus the writing is a mess. Like how in 4e different spells and prayers are written up in accordance to one set of mechanics, whereas in previous editions each spell has its own detailed explanation (and Turn Undead is basically a subsystem unto itself with its own table).

I was talking about translating an obtusely-written Pathfinder ability into 4e terms, not the reverse. Remember? If it helps, though:

Greater Vital Strikin'
Prerequisites: 11th level, fighter, Improved Vital Strike.
Benefit: You gain the Greater Vital Strike power.

(WotC doesn't break feats down into individual levels. Nor do they need power-granting feats in order to fix damage scaling and the fact that iterative attacks are a mess; granted, they do have feat taxes to fix attack and defense bonus scaling.)

Quote from: Marleycat;533680I see a big difference between x per day powers and encounter powers. The former allows the player to use them however they will, in combat or out of combat in any combination. Where encounter powers get to be used once in a given encounter and most have no use in out of combat scenerios.

You lost me. As opposed to all the out-of-combat uses for Stunning Fist?

Cool story bro

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533727No! Bad Jeff! Come back here with those goalposts!

Not moving goalposts. I am saying that you are full of shit.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533727I'm not positing that Pathfinder devs are secretly trying to duplicate 4e individual powers exactly. Just pointing out that Pathfinder is doing plenty of things that 4e did first, only their design is less unified and thus the writing is a mess.

But you so far have not been able to prove it at all. So keep trying! In fact, try harder. Show me something specific that was in 4E, that has an obvious corolarry to what is done in Pathfinder. In fact, site your source as well.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533727You lost me. As opposed to all the out-of-combat uses for Stunning Fist?

That did not answer this issue at hand. Here let me explain....Encounter powers can only be used one time, seperately and I guess every 5 minutes which is useless and unrealistic. An x power can be used up to it's limit in any situation. And not all of them need be or are combat related at all.

Great that you have pointed out one power that you would use in an out of combat context, which is arguable at that given a basic attack would probably serve better than wasting an encounter power on a non combat situation.

Quote from: jeff37923;533732But you so far have not been able to prove it at all. So keep trying! In fact, try harder.

Not interested in proving anything to do. Don't have to. Wasn't trying to "prove" the thing you're whining for "proof" over in the first place. But keep whining! And keep coming up with bad answers to questions no one asked!

Quote from: Marleycat;533734That did not answer this issue at hand. Here let me explain....Encounter powers can only be used one time, seperately and I guess every 5 minutes which is useless and unrealistic. An x power can be used up to it's limit in any situation.

A "3/day" martial power makes no more or less sense than a "once every five minutes" martial power.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533736A "3/day" martial power makes no more or less sense than a "once every five minutes" martial power.

I can have sex 3 times a day.  I cannot have sex with only a 5 minute break in between ALL DAY LONG.

I hope you can see the difference.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533675Not really relevant. The argument is that as Pathfinder develops, they've done a lot of things that 4e also does, only they state them in much more cumbersome language.

If by more cumbersome you mean in a more well written and cogent way sure. Don't like pathfinder but at least paizo takes time to explain its class abilities with more than a quirky formula and one line description.

But to the point it is highly relevant because the verisimilitude complaint doesn't apply to at will style powers. When paizo has healing surges, full class parity, gets rid of the vancian spell list, forces all classes to use identical mechanics, and employs martial dailies and encounters, then you can tell me how everyone loved 4E all along but just needed it described in "more cumbersome language".

If you like 4E more power to you. Play what you love. But this is a very unconvincing argument.

But you can't see the difference between fucking and kicking a door down.

Are you Tucker Max?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;533739When paizo has healing surges, full class parity, gets rid of the vancian spell list, forces all classes to use identical mechanics, and employs martial dailies and encounters, then you can tell me how everyone loved 4E all along but just needed it described in "more cumbersome language".

...

But this is a very unconvincing argument.

Good thing it's not the argument I'm making, then! :)

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533736Not interested in proving anything to do. Don't have to. Wasn't trying to "prove" the thing you're whining for "proof" over in the first place. But keep whining! And keep coming up with bad answers to questions no one asked!

So you admit to being a full of shit 4venger.

You must be near suicide considering that your gaming religion has been declaired a mistake. You have my pity.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;533738I can have sex 3 times a day.  I cannot have sex with only a 5 minute break in between ALL DAY LONG.

I hope you can see the difference.

So sex is a martial power??? :confused:

:D

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533740But you can't see the difference between fucking and kicking a door down.

If it's an action that requires an unusual amount of adrenaline (or whatever), then there is no real difference.  If I find myself in a high stress situation where I am able to perform something I normally wouldn't be able to do (run extra fast, lift extra heavy items, etc), then I can do that, sure.  But only a couple times before my body just quits.  I can't just keep doing it over and over again with a few minutes of break time.

As an example, in boot camp, I had a 2 mile run as a final test.  I had under 14 minutes to do it in.  The track was 1 mile, and it was crowded.  When I made my first lap, my time was 7:35.  I was scared shitless because failure meant I would have to repeat boot camp.  My 2nd mile?  5 minutes flat.  I have never come close to running a 5 minute mile ever in my life.  Not before, not after.  But that time I could because I was properly "motivated".  If they made me redo the same test 10 minutes later, I would not be able to reproduce the same effect because I was totally spent after doing so, regardless of my motivation.

You seem to have no concept on how adrenaline works.

Quote from: The Butcher;533744So sex is a martial power??? :confused:

:D

Gotta give the jocks something because spellcasters are so overpowered...

Quote from: jeff37923;533741So you admit to being a full of shit 4venger.

Keep ragin', bro.

QuoteYou must be near suicide considering that your gaming religion has been declaired a mistake. You have my pity.

I'm so close to suicide that I'm looking forward to Lair Assault tomorrow night, Encounters Sunday afternoon, and wondering when I'll get a good look at the next edition.

4e will have lasted as long as 3.5 before being replaced; I don't see how that constitutes a "mistake." If 4e is a failure, 3e is moreso, as the OGL wasn't retained.

I feel sorry for you. You're like one of those religious people who says to atheists "But you foolishly worship The Scientific Establishment because everyone has faith in something!" It's beyond your comprehension that other people don't cling to an edition of a game about pretending to be an elf and experience searing butthole agony when the next edition rolls around. If Pathfinder or some other retroclone is the particular Preparation H formula that works for you, who am I to begrudge you?

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;533745You seem to have no concept on how adrenaline works.

So you think penises are powered by adrenaline and associate sex with being intimidated by men in uniform. Tell me more about that. ::indicates velvet couch, begins writing on notepad::

Quote from: Halloween Jack;5337484e will have lasted as long as 3.5 before being replaced; I don't see how that constitutes a "mistake." If 4e is a failure, 3e is moreso, as the OGL wasn't retained.

WtF!?!:banghead:

Halloween Jack is a 4venger.  He posts on SA and TBP, which should tell you all you need to know.  However, he is pleasant enough to talk to, and I don't think he's trolling (unlike TCO).

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533748So you think penises are powered by adrenaline and associate sex with being intimidated by men in uniform. Tell me more about that. ::indicates velvet couch, begins writing on notepad::

Wow.  You truly are a colossal idiot.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533748I'm so close to suicide...

Dude, even though you are worthless, please call the National Suicide Hotline before considering this course of action. Their number is 1-800-784-2433. Remember, even the loss of a 4ron like yourself diminishes us all.

It's fine with me if he prefers 4e. Now if he tells me 3e/Pathfinder or any of the other Dnd style games I play and run are badwrongfun then we have an issue. If so, he is nothing but 4venger to me.

Quote from: Marleycat;533751WtF!?!:banghead:

Dungeons & Dragons: 1974.
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: 1977.
D&D Basic Set: Also 1977. Revised 1981 and 1983.
AD&D Second Edition: 1989.
Rules Cyclopedia: 1991.
The Dungeons & Dragons Game: 1991.
Classic Dungeons & Dragons Game: 1994.
AD&D Second Edition Revised: 1995.
Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Game: 1999.

A Series of Unfortunate Rulebooks.

Quote from: B.T.;533753Halloween Jack is a 4venger.  He posts on SA and TBP, which should tell you all you need to know.  However, he is pleasant enough to talk to, and I don't think he's trolling (unlike TCO).

TBP?

I'm also on ENWorld and The Gaming Den and I think K&K and Dragonsfoot, but I almost never post there.

Quote from: Marleycat;533761It's fine with me if he prefers 4e. Now if he tells me 3e/Pathfinder or any of the other Dnd style games I play and run are badwrongfun then we have an issue. If so, he is nothing but 4venger to me.

Why would I tell you that? I just said I think all the arguments about realism and verisimilitude betwixt 4e and Pathfinder are silly given that they contain a lot of the same features, only I find Pathfinder's language cumbersome. I also don't like the fact that the devs, by their own admission, don't care much for checking their math.

Quote from: jeff37923;533756Dude, even though you are worthless, please call the National Suicide Hotline before considering this course of action. Their number is 1-800-784-2433. remember, even the loss of a 4ron like yourself diminishes us all.

Cool story bro.

TBP = The Big Purple = RPG.net.  You'll have to excuse jeff; he's been feeling trollish lately.

QuoteDungeons & Dragons: 1974.
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: 1977.
D&D Basic Set: Also 1977. Revised 1981 and 1983.
AD&D Second Edition: 1989.
Rules Cyclopedia: 1991.
The Dungeons & Dragons Game: 1991.
Classic Dungeons & Dragons Game: 1994.
AD&D Second Edition Revised: 1995.
Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Game: 1999.

A Series of Unfortunate Rulebooks.

What an uninfortunate choice of words. It looks like you are nothing but a 4venger, too bad you are kind of funny and interesting to chat with though. Saying the RC was uninforturnate is truly hilarious.

QuoteWhy would I tell you that? I just said I think all the arguments about realism and verisimilitude betwixt 4e and Pathfinder are silly given that they contain a lot of the same features, only I find Pathfinder's language cumbersome. I also don't like the fact that the devs, by their own admission, don't care much for checking their math.

This really does clinch it, the 4venger vaunted love of literal class balance and insisting it makes for a good rpg.

It is a little weird that I only post on this board on occasion, but always notice Jeff going on and on about suicide.

Quote from: Marleycat;533766What an unfortunate choice of words. It looks like you are nothing but a 4venger, too bad you are kind of funny and interesting to chat with though.

I don't know why I didn't follow up.

D&D Third Edition: 2000.
D&D 3.5 Edition: 2003.
D&D 4th Edition: 2008.
D&D Essentials: 2010.
D&D "Next": 201?

Quote from: B.T.;533765You'll have to excuse jeff; he's been feeling trollish lately.

Only towards those who are subhuman, like racists and 4vengers.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533767It is a little weird that I only post on this board on occasion, but always notice Jeff going on and on about suicide.

He tends to latch onto certain posters.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533763Cool story bro.

I already said that a few posts above.  Granted, I said it as a way to mock your overuse of that phrase whenever you can't actually argue against whatever the person was claiming.   I just didn't know it was going to be so self-fulfilling so quickly.

Quote from: B.T.;533771He tends to latch onto certain posters.

I have grognard barnacles. This dreadnought can't be stopped, baby!

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;533772I already said that a few posts above.  Granted, I said it as a way to mock your overuse of that phrase whenever you can't actually argue against whatever the person was claiming.   I just didn't know it was going to be so self-fulfilling so quickly.

Look, I'm not actually going to actively encourage you to keep comparing your penis to fencing maneuvers. If you want to keep talking, we'll listen, I promise.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533767It is a little weird that I only post on this board on occasion, but always notice Jeff going on and on about suicide.

I don't know why I didn't follow up.

D&D Third Edition: 2000.
D&D 3.5 Edition: 2003.
D&D 4th Edition: 2008.
D&D Essentials: 2010.
D&D "Next": 201?

Haha.:)

That's more like the SA motif rock on sir!

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533767It is a little weird that I only post on this board on occasion, but always notice Jeff going on and on about suicide.

I'm just trying to save you from taking your own life, cupcake.

Quote from: B.T.;533771He tends to latch onto certain posters.

No, I am an equal opportunity kind of guy. I attack any stupid idea idea I find.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533775I have grognard barnacles. This dreadnought can't be stopped, baby!

You are so cute when you are desperately trying to boost your own ego.

I think you only came here to troll after SA got the word of Monte Cook's split with WotC. It was like a 4venger feeding call.

Quote from: jeff37923;533783I'm just trying to save you from taking your own life, cupcake.


.

Why?  At this point, I couldn't care less.

You two make a cute couple, in a "The Deer Hunter" sort of way.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533796You two make a cute couple, in a "The Deer Hunter" sort of way.

Jealous?

So, Jeff, do you have any opinions about Dungeons & Dragons, the forthcoming "D&D Next" edition thereof, or wildly popular retroclone Pathfinder?

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533804So, Jeff, do you have any opinions about Dungeons & Dragons, the forthcoming "D&D Next" edition thereof, or wildly popular retroclone Pathfinder?

Oh, I have plenty of opinions.

However, you are just desperate to try and change the direction of the thread that you tried so hard to shit up in the first place.

Quote from: The Butcher;533744So sex is a martial power??? :confused:

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon! :D

Quote from: Marleycat;533766This really does clinch it, the 4venger vaunted love of literal class balance and insisting it makes for a good rpg.

Are you saying only class imbalance makes for good rpgs?

Quote from: Sommerjon;533832Are you saying only class imbalance makes for good rpgs?

Please read what I said carefully and think about it. Then you have your answer.

Quote from: Sommerjon;533832Are you saying only class imbalance makes for good rpgs?

It looks like she's saying class balance alone doesn't make for a good rpg.

In fact, she didn't use the word "only" (or an equivalent) at all in what you quoted, so I'm not sure where you got that from.

Actually that's part of it but the more important part is, I don't think symmetrical class balance works for a rpg. I think classes should be asymmetric and balanced accordingly like before 4e. Classes should not have all the same powers or built the same way and so on. Each basic archetype should have a particular strength and weakness with overall balance accounting for that.

Quote from: Marleycat;533846Actually that's part of it but the more important part is, I don't think symmetrical class balance works for a rpg. I think classes should be asymmetric and balanced accordingly like before 4e. Classes should not have all the same powers or built the same way and so on. Each basic archetype should have a particular strength and weakness with overall balance accounting for that.

Hahahahaha asymmetric balance oh my you are so adorable.

Also hahahahahahahahaha classes not being built the same way. Please, name me an edition where classes aren't built the same way, please do! Oh, wait, wait, you can't because classes are built the same way! It's just some started to get more powerful over time and somehow nerds have this fantasy that writing 'Wizard' or 'Cleric' or whatever on your character sheet is a valid excuse for extra narrative control.

You are what is wrong with gaming. In cooperative gaming an equal level of control over the flow of the game is simply good design; simply because it was done differently before doesn't make it good. If you want a poorly-balanced mess of a game, play 3E, don't ask 5E to cater to shitty design just because it's shitty design that you like.

Ah, looks like I will need a bigger bottle.

Oh look, the other shithead has shown up.

Quote from: Darwinism;533908Hahahahaha asymmetric balance oh my you are so adorable.

Also hahahahahahahahaha classes not being built the same way. Please, name me an edition where classes aren't built the same way, please do! Oh, wait, wait, you can't because classes are built the same way! It's just some started to get more powerful over time and somehow nerds have this fantasy that writing 'Wizard' or 'Cleric' or whatever on your character sheet is a valid excuse for extra narrative control.

You are what is wrong with gaming. In cooperative gaming an equal level of control over the flow of the game is simply good design; simply because it was done differently before doesn't make it good. If you want a poorly-balanced mess of a game, play 3E, don't ask 5E to cater to shitty design just because it's shitty design that you like.

Wow, I feel honored I leveled up to the trolls calling me "adorable", question did you expect a serious response to that so called post trying to totally ignore what I actually said?  Seriously I'm confused.

Remember everyone, because X problem exists in 3ed, 4ed is automatically good.

Quote from: Daztur;533931Remember everyone, because X problem exists in 3ed, 4ed is automatically good.

I prefer the alternative, "4e fixed all these problems in D&D so it's the best" when they conveniently ignore that in the first 25 years of D&D, those "problems" never existed to begin with.  It's like, "4e is better than 3e, so that means it's the best version ever."

Quote from: Daztur;533931Remember everyone, because X problem exists in 3ed, 4ed is automatically good.

Damn, what is it with the black and white that 4vengers adhere to? Not 4e fans but that subset, they've so fanatical. Every version before 3e is asymmetric design and most of 3e is. Are they really that clueless about the game before 2000AD?

Quote from: Darwinism;533908Please, name me an edition where classes aren't built the same way, please do! .

What do you define as "built the same way?"  That they all need xp to gain in levels, and with each level, you get more HP?  Because that's about the only similarity in all D&D prior to 4e.

Classes gain in power in completely different intervals that have no correlation whatsoever.  Some classes has magic, some do not. Some get really good in combat, while others do not.

The way I'm reading MC's post that you quoted is that she disagrees that every time ANY classes levels, the level of power increase is the same as every other class, and that random Level 4 class character is the exact same power level as random level 4 class character next to them.  All classes have X amount of dailies and per encounters and powers.  And I happen to agree with MC that that isn't needed.

Quote from: Marleycat;533938Damn, what is it with the black and white that 4vengers adhere to? Not 4e fans but that subset, they've so fanatical.

4vengers don't play D&D because 4E is a game, they play 4E because it is their religion. Kinda like how an old science fiction writer created the cult of scientology.

And no, 4E fans are not 4vengers.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;533940What do you define as "built the same way?"  That they all need xp to gain in levels, and with each level, you get more HP?  Because that's about the only similarity in all D&D prior to 4e.

Classes gain in power in completely different intervals that have no correlation whatsoever.  Some classes has magic, some do not. Some get really good in combat, while others do not.

The way I'm reading MC's post that you quoted is that she disagrees that every time ANY classes levels, the level of power increase is the same as every other class, and that random Level 4 class character is the exact same power level as random level 4 class character next to them.  All classes have X amount of dailies and per encounters and powers.  And I happen to agree with MC that that isn't needed.

You sir are exactly correct and should be a Jedi Knight for correctly discerning a woman's mind.

Quote from: jeff37923;5339444vengers don't play D&D because 4E is a game, they play 4E because it is their religion. Kinda like how an old science fiction writer created the cult of scientology.

And no, 4E fans are not 4vengers.

That's what I figured but I haven't actually played BCEMI so I wasn't sure.:)

Thinking of running some mashup of what I do have thanks to you. :)

Quote from: Marleycat;533938Damn, what is it with the black and white that 4vengers adhere to? Not 4e fans but that subset, they've so fanatical. Every version before 3e is asymmetric design and most of 3e is. Are they really that clueless about the game before 2000AD?

Actually, the problem is just the opposite. In the current edition of reality, D&D posters are very badly balanced. That is, 4vengers actually understand the rules of previous editions, but other posters don't have the skill points to actually know more than out-of-context fragments of the game they criticize. Combat ends up being really boring because 3etards and OSRds end up spamming Lying and Namecalling because they're the only attack options they have the feats for. Unfortunately, the current design team doesn't seem interested in introducing enough intellectual honesty into the various forums for every class to argue in good faith.

Quote from: jeff37923;5339444vengers don't play D&D because 4E is a game, they play 4E because it is their religion. Kinda like how an old science fiction writer created the cult of scientology.

And no, 4E fans are not 4vengers.

I played 3e because it was the only thing anyone in town was playing, and I play 4e for pretty much the same reason. Fortunately, I like 4e a lot better.

You were doing so good until you used a perjorative. Seriously you seem to be a better grade of troll but please learn not to be stupid.

No, you.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533983No, you.

Okay,.seriously I'm just here to help you.  Even I like entertainment, I mean different viewpoints.:)

Quote from: Marleycat;533985Okay .....seriously just here to help you.

No, you're not. When you read something you don't know how to respond to, you post something that's just longhand for "You're dumb" that can't be meaningfully responded to. You're still more charming than Jeff, with his hair-trigger "Kill yourself" gimmick, but don't pretend you're arguing in good faith.

What is so cute about this is that after all is said and done, when 4E has been placed in the dustbin of history, the same kind of slobbering fanboi will be using the d20 SRD and OGL to create what each one believes to be the Ultimate 4E Clone. Two things will result:

A) There will be an Edition War unlike any other as 4vengers of each 4E Clone fight one another to prove that their 4E Clone is the One True Way.

B) Reluctantly, gnashing their teeth in anger, spitting the name, each 4venger will have to admit that their 4E Clone could not exist without Ryan Dancey's creation and the pioneering efforts of Paizo and the OSR.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533987No, you're not. When you read something you don't know how to respond to, you post something that's just longhand for "You're dumb" that can't be meaningfully responded to. You're still more charming than Jeff, with his hair-trigger "Kill yourself" gimmick, but don't pretend you're arguing in good faith.

I am arguing in exactly as much "good faith" as you are. So step it up already, before even I get bored.  You think myself and others on this site haven't tried 4e in good faith or something even more ignorant?

Quote from: jeff37923;533988What is so cute about this is that after all is said and done, when 4E has been placed in the dustbin of history, the same kind of slobbering fanboi will be using the d20 SRD and OGL to create what each one believes to be the Ultimate 4E Clone. Two things will result:

A) There will be an Edition War unlike any other as 4vengers of each 4E Clone fight one another to prove that their 4E Clone is the One True Way.

B) Reluctantly, gnashing their teeth in anger, spitting the name, each 4venger will have to admit that their 4E Clone could not exist without Ryan Dancey's creation and the pioneering efforts of Paizo and the OSR.

You know I just wish I could actually type well and have a computer...maybe it's the drinking.  Either way you put it far more elaquently than I do, and grammactically correct also. :)

Edit: kidding on the drinking, not the computer or typing.

I'm having Crown Royal and coffee tonight. Proof that I type better when drunk (I earned my straight tequila nerd moniker).

(I also have two cats who like to jump up on my computer keyboard since my hands are not being put to good use petting them or pointing the laser pointer for them to chase.)

Quote from: jeff37923;533988What is so cute about this is that after all is said and done, when 4E has been placed in the dustbin of history, the same kind of slobbering fanboi will be using the d20 SRD and OGL to create what each one believes to be the Ultimate 4E Clone. Two things will result:

A) There will be an Edition War unlike any other as 4vengers of each 4E Clone fight one another to prove that their 4E Clone is the One True Way.

B) Reluctantly, gnashing their teeth in anger, spitting the name, each 4venger will have to admit that their 4E Clone could not exist without Ryan Dancey's creation and the pioneering efforts of Paizo and the OSR.

What's sad is that this probably isn't going to happen. But you can't imagine it not happening. You're irrationally angry about elfgames, and irrationally attached to your favourite edition, so everyone else must be too, right? Normal human beings with a healthy, sane attitude about pretending to be an elven dragon-slaying wizard is just impossible. So you dream up delusions of "4vengers" to get irrationally angry about.

Quote from: jeff37923;533994I'm having Crown Royal and coffee tonight. Proof that I type better when drunk (I earned my straight tequila nerd moniker).

(I also have two cats who like to jump up on my computer keyboard since my hands are not being put to good use petting them or pointing the laser pointer for them to chase.)

You call yourself a "tequila nerd" because you drink shitty Canadian brown vodka masquerading as whisky? If you want to drink Canadian whisky, try Knob Creek. Hell, even Canadian Club 6yr is much better than Crown Royal.

Quote from: Halloween Jack-Off;533996What's sad is that this probably isn't going to happen. But you can't imagine it not happening. You're irrationally angry about elfgames, and irrationally attached to your favourite edition, so everyone else must be too, right? Normal human beings with a healthy, sane attitude about pretending to be an elven dragon-slaying wizard is just impossible. So you dream up delusions of "4vengers" to get irrationally angry about.

Struck a nerve, did I?

Quote from: Halloween Jack-Off;533996You call yourself a "tequila nerd" because you drink shitty Canadian brown vodka masquerading as whisky? If you want to drink Canadian whisky, try Knob Creek. Hell, even Canadian Club 6yr is much better than Crown Royal.

Oh, stop. People will begin to think that you are masterbating while you type one-handed.

Quote from: jeff37923;533994I'm having Crown Royal and coffee tonight. Proof that I type better when drunk (I earned my straight tequila nerd moniker).

(I also have two cats who like to jump up on my computer keyboard since my hands are not being put to good use petting them or pointing the laser pointer for them to chase.)

Shush, you damn well better not get in trouble from your wife for knowing me. If she doesn't kill you I will find a way. :D

Least you have good taste CR is some good whiskey, yes it is.:)

Quote from: jeff37923;534001Struck a nerve, did I?

Nah. Your opinions are too dumb.

Quote from: Marleycat;534003Shush, you damn well better not get in trouble from your wife for knowing me. If she doesn't kill you I will find a way. :D

Least you have good taste CR is some good whiskey, yes it is.:)

Well if the guy pretending to be a kitten making death threats likes it, it must be classy.

Quote from: Halloween Jack-Off;534004Fap. Fap. Fap.

Don't you have to wipe off the keyboard and screen every once in awhile?

Quote from: Halloween Jack;534004Nah. Your opinions are too dumb.

Well if the guy pretending to be a kitten making death threats likes it, it must be classy.

Nice, real classy, seems I'm done here.  Could you at least keep the discussion to gaming rather than calling me a guy because you have nothing to refute my opinion of you're full of shit?

Why do I keep feeding the trolls, seriously I need help here. Possibly in the real sense.:)

Quote from: Marleycat;534006Nice, real classy, seems I'm done here.  Could you at least keep the discussion to gaming rather than calling me a guy because you have nothing to refute my opinion of you're full of shit?

Actually, you and Jeff are the reason the discussion devolved to "No, you're dumb" repeated back and forth. Keep pretending you're not a useless asshole, though. How else will you get through the day?

Quote from: Halloween Jack-Off;534009Actually, you and Jeff are the reason the discussion devolved to "No, you're dumb" repeated back and forth.

After you could not prove your idiotic claim that Pathfinder was copying ideas from 4E, you started the standard 4vengering.

Quote from: Halloween Jack-Off;534009Keep pretending you're not a useless asshole, though. How else will you get through the day?

All she has to do is note that she does not have to clean her keyboard and screen as often as you must.

Quote from: Halloween Jack-Off;534009Fap. Fap. Fap.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;534009Actually, you and Jeff are the reason the discussion devolved to "No, you're dumb" repeated back and forth. Keep pretending you're not a useless asshole, though. How else will you get through the day?

Wow, now two known trolls attack me on bullshit and you link me in Jeff's league? You're seriously out of ammunition here. I am just a baby kitten here, both at this site and my interest interest in old school, ask anybody. But I have claws and am learning how to use them quick even though it's not my preference.

Quote from: jeff37923;534013After you could not prove your idiotic claim that Pathfinder was copying ideas from 4E, you started the standard 4vengering.

If Paizo was outright copying 4e, their design wouldn't suck shit through a hose.

QuoteAll she has to do is note that she does not have to clean her keyboard and screen as often as you must.

An idiotic claim. Prove it!

Quote from: Marleycat;534014I am just a baby kitten here, both at this site and my interest interest in old school, ask anybody. But I have claws and am learning how to use them quick even though it's not my preference.

Ooh, watch out! It's Internet Tough Cat!

I did say you're entertaining ......thank God it's my day off, I can be here all day for the show.:)

On another more important subject ...I never have "keyboard" issues.

Quote from: Halloween Jack-Off;534018If Paizo was outright copying 4e, their design wouldn't suck shit through a hose.

An idiotic claim. Prove it!

Ooh, watch out! It's Internet Tough Cat!

4vengers 4ssemble!

Quote from: Halloween Jack-Off;534018Fap. Fap. Fap.

To be fair, and I'm only going to make this one post on this particular PF/4E issue, as someone who quit 4E and took up Pathfinder I would argue that I definitely see elements of Pathfinder that could be inspired by elements of 4E. Not so much in the core, more in the subsequent splat books. The  new combat maneouvres in the APG that cause forced movement, for instance. I know about Bullrush and all that, but the maneouvres introduced in the APG expand forced movement to a similar range to 4E. The rules are definitely 3.5 though, complete with attacks of opportunity to deter you from actually doing them.

Quote from: Orpheo;534030To be fair, and I'm only going to make this one post on this particular PF/4E issue, as someone who quit 4E and took up Pathfinder I would argue that I definitely see elements of Pathfinder that could be inspired by elements of 4E. Not so much in the core, more in the subsequent splat books. The  new combat maneouvres in the APG that cause forced movement, for instance. I know about Bullrush and all that, but the maneouvres introduced in the APG expand forced movement to a similar range to 4E. The rules are definitely 3.5 though, complete with attacks of opportunity to deter you from actually doing them.

OK, this I will look into and take at face value.

Orpheo's point being much more articulate than "Ohmigod, Pathfinder sux and so do you!" Halloween Jack's version seems like something he read on another forum and tried to use without having any understanding of the subject.

Quote from: jeff37923;533679Except that you have yet to provide any proof.

The Greater Vital Strike feat is not proof because your "conversion" to 4E does not include the need for prerequisites before that one can be used. It is not even an actual trick in 4E.

The feat Antagonize just shows the feat, you do not even give the example of what 4E trick it is supposed to be a copy of.

Not to mention the fact that anything that does 4W sure as hell ain't gonna be an At-Will power.  ;)

JG

Quote from: jeff37923;534031OK, this I will look into and take at face value.

I've taken a look at the Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide on Combat Maneuvers (p320-p322). I can see them being inspired by 4E if I squint really hard, but they are still just combat maneuvers that any character class may use and to be adept at them requires a Feat. They do not look like the Powers in D&D 4E, which are specifically limited to each class.

Quote from: Orpheo;534030To be fair, and I'm only going to make this one post on this particular PF/4E issue, as someone who quit 4E and took up Pathfinder I would argue that I definitely see elements of Pathfinder that could be inspired by elements of 4E. Not so much in the core, more in the subsequent splat books. The  new combat maneouvres in the APG that cause forced movement, for instance. I know about Bullrush and all that, but the maneouvres introduced in the APG expand forced movement to a similar range to 4E. The rules are definitely 3.5 though, complete with attacks of opportunity to deter you from actually doing them.

This sir makes sense especially given that Pathfinder is going the way of late 3.5 with their own twists like Fantasy Craft, they just have to move slowly.  They will get there. Even if your particular example doesn't prove your thesis.

I agree with Jeff less yelling more facts.  I can listen and read.  I graduated from HS even.

Quote from: The Butcher;533744So sex is a martial power??? :confused:

:D

Well, technically an "exploit" rather than a "spell," although Divines could call it a "prayer".

JG

Quote from: jeff37923;534005Don't you have to wipe off the keyboard and screen every once in awhile?

Does anyone even USE White-Out anymore?

JG

Quote from: Orpheo;534030To be fair, and I'm only going to make this one post on this particular PF/4E issue, as someone who quit 4E and took up Pathfinder I would argue that I definitely see elements of Pathfinder that could be inspired by elements of 4E. Not so much in the core, more in the subsequent splat books. The  new combat maneouvres in the APG that cause forced movement, for instance. I know about Bullrush and all that, but the maneouvres introduced in the APG expand forced movement to a similar range to 4E. The rules are definitely 3.5 though, complete with attacks of opportunity to deter you from actually doing them.

Pretty much that, yeah.

Quote from: James Gillen;534033Not to mention the fact that anything that does 4W sure as hell ain't gonna be an At-Will power.  ;)

JG

Definitely not. 4e instead gives you at-wills that scale to 2[W] at high level, and after that you rely on your encounter powers. But 4e and Pathfinder could never have straight-across comparisons in weapon damage, because 4e doesn't stick its foot in the cowpie of iterative attacks. (Instead, it sticks its foot in the cowpie of too many static mods to juggle, and assuming feat taxes and charge/combat advantage to achieve a reliable to-hit rate.)

Quote from: Halloween Jack-Off;534084Fap. Fap. Fap.

:rolleyes:

In many ways it won't really be a " VS " situation between the two.

Both games will feature adventurers going into strange places on a quest or looking for 'loot' - in a variety of places like 'dungeons', haunted forests, ruins of past civilizations ..etc.

PAIZO will still win the 'PR Battle' tho - because their maps will work with both game systems, the same with their pre-painted minis for PATHFINDER.  The miniatures are the same scale as D&D has traditionally used.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;534018If Paizo was outright copying 4e, their design wouldn't suck shit through a hose.

I think the new animal companion system is very good.  The revamped paladin is good also.  Unfortunately, the quality of Paizo mechanics  vary...considerably even within a book.

Quote from: B.T.;534276I think the new animal companion system is very good.  The revamped paladin is good also.  Unfortunately, the quality of Paizo mechanics  vary...considerably even within a book.

That's true I think that the one thing Wotc has going for it is that once they work the kinks out they build mechanically solid games.  4e is a example of this. Problem is it's a mini's skirmish game not a traditional rpg.