Quote from: Christopher Brady;827151I never said that they were 'lying to themselves'.  I'm saying that people will make stuff up, as an excuse to not try something.

Here's the thing, people were slamming D&D 4e the moment that they heard that 3e was 'finished'.  No one knew what the system was like, people still claimed it was going to be crap.  Made up things about it, so that they could have an excuse to insult and slam it.  Just because they were scared of leaving their comfort zones.  Which in this case was the 3.x system.

Anyone who claims there's no such thing as 'the gamer police' has never been on the various game forums.  WE are the gamer police.



And it's not my premise, it's what people said, Paizo promised on their website, as part of it's marketing pitch that Pathfinder WOULD be backwards compatible, that was one of the things they claimed it would be.  They also claimed that they would also refine and improve the base system.  A lot of us on the, at the time, rather toxic Paizo forums had doubts about both promises.  However, when the game finally came out, there were some pretty substantial changes to certain aspects, like the CMB/CMD thing, the various Races being changed, the Sorcerer class expansion, that pretty much did the exact same thing that the fans, and Paizo, said would never happen, invalidate their old books.

In summation, and in fact, people still claim that PFRPG is the ' true successor' to D&D, some have said it's like the 'second coming', and they also say it's 3.75.

Do you know what happened when Wizards did that?  When they made 3.5?  People moaned and complained about how Wizards suddenly invalidated their entire 3.0 collection and how they were being 'forced' to buy the new books, because there were too many changes.  I know, cuz I was one of those people.

Paizo pulls the exact same thing, and people praise them for it.  Boggles the mind, doesn't it.

What boggles the mind is that you can't seem to let go of your bitterness about the Paizo forums, and it colors every conversation you have on the subject.  I spent about 5 minutes on the Paizo forums during the Playtest and thought, huh, this is the same asshole behavior I see on most game forums where people are way too invested, I think I'll stay away from those threads.  I do that with TBP and Wizards and Palladium and, well, every game site I can think of.

As to Paizo promising backwards compatibility, so what?  All you needed to see was the first alpha to see that there were going to be big changes.  I recall 4e people crying about Wizard's "promise" that every edition would be compatible with 5e, when that was clearly not going to happen or even be possible.

Look, some people were never going to like 4e, but implying its because they're just provincial rubes afraid to try anything new and suckered by Paizo is kind of insulting as well as not true.

Quote from: Flashman;827201Look, some people were never going to like 4e, but implying its because they're just provincial rubes afraid to try anything new and suckered by Paizo is kind of insulting as well as not true.

And I would be totally fine if they decided to just not like 4e.  It's their right.  But making stuff up about it, so to excuse themselves from even trying it?  That's uncool.  And there was a lot of that.  I am not implying anything, I am just repeating what I saw on a LOT of boards, from Paizo to WoTC to TBP, as well as reactions from a couple of gaming conventions and a few gaming stores.  And these weren't people I knew, but random strangers claiming things that they heard off the internet by a few admittedly bitter people as gospel truth.

Let me repeat:  If you do not like 4e, or any D&D edition, it is your right.  And if you do not wish to try it and find out why you do not like, I personally will find it sad, but will not argue your choice.  If you start putting forth misinformation as fact, I will challenge you on it, but I am not going to try and change your mind.  Play what you want, however you want.  That's the beauty of this hobby.

As for Paizo 'suckering' I never said that.  What I said is what Paizo did, they took the OGL and managed to copy almost verbatim the D20 SRD, slapped on some house rules and called it a game.  The fans are the ones who claimed it was the second coming.

Now, I'll let you in a little secret, I bought the Pathfinder RPG recently, and I read through it, the Advanced Combat Guide, and put on order the Bestiary, and I will freely and happily admit that some of the changes in the rules, I absolutely adore.

For example the Paladin's Smite lasting until it hits?  FREAKING GENIUS in it's simplicity.

I love the change to Cleave and Great Cleave, finally, GC is no longer a trap.

Some of the formerly Save or Die spells actually being reasonably powered, instead of one shot fight enders, like (Tasha's) Hideous Laughter, which needed a couple of passes to get the wording right, but now you can spend an action to save every turn until you succeed, instead of just once, and then you're done if you fail.

These are great design choices.  And I love them and use them in my other D20 gaming (as limited as that has been.)

But I'm also looking and wondering at some other things, like for example the Fighter's DR5 at level 19, at which point between hit point inflation and magic makes it a moot point.  It's like the monk's Diamond Body thing, about half that has a mechanical value, the other half is mostly flavour text and pointless.

Pathfinder has it's good points and bad points, pretty much like all editions of D&D or... Frankly, ANY RPG with multiple editions, like L5R.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;827238Some of the formerly Save or Die spells actually being reasonably powered, instead of one shot fight enders, like (Tasha's) Hideous Laughter, which needed a couple of passes to get the wording right, but now you can spend an action to save every turn until you succeed, instead of just once, and then you're done if you fail.

Different tastes for different people. One of the things I abhor about modern versions of D&D is the length of combat. I love save-or-die/suck spells because they help end fights quickly. Combat is like negotiation or defeating a trap to me -- an obstacle to further exploration and treasure gathering. I don't want any of those obstacles to regularly take more than 5 or 10 minutes of play time to resolve.  I have no use for min-maxing, system mastery, slow/complex character creation, adventure paths (as opposed to sandbox play) or being expected to play RAW either.

All of the things I do not like have been stressed in modern versions of D&D. It's not nostalgia that keeps me playing TSR editions of D&D, it's that TSR editions of D&D provide the experience I want to have while more modern versions do not provide the experience I want. (There's also little things like B/X is about 128 pages of rules where 5e is just short of 1000 pages of rules.)

I get that you (and many others) see a lot of improvement in modern versions of D&D and a lot of flaws in older editions. However, for my style of play, there are far more flaws in modern editions than there are in early editions.

Quote from: RandallS;827249Different tastes for different people. One of the things I abhor about modern versions of D&D is the length of combat. I love save-or-die/suck spells because they help end fights quickly. Combat is like negotiation or defeating a trap to me -- an obstacle to further exploration and treasure gathering. I don't want any of those obstacles to regularly take more than 5 or 10 minutes of play time to resolve.  I have no use for min-maxing, system mastery, slow/complex character creation, adventure paths (as opposed to sandbox play) or being expected to play RAW either.

All of the things I do not like have been stressed in modern versions of D&D. It's not nostalgia that keeps me playing TSR editions of D&D, it's that TSR editions of D&D provide the experience I want to have while more modern versions do not provide the experience I want. (There's also little things like B/X is about 128 pages of rules where 5e is just short of 1000 pages of rules.)

I get that you (and many others) see a lot of improvement in modern versions of D&D and a lot of flaws in older editions. However, for my style of play, there are far more flaws in modern editions than there are in early editions.

That's totally fair.  For me, as a DM, I've found the Save or Die tends to force one side of the playing group to sit back and watch the magic users do stuff.  My experience, however is not indicative of the way the game is, just what I've seen.

Hmm, I used to care about people being open to trying new things. In some ways I still am. But I've mellowed with age.

Now if someone wants to eat cold, unseasoned oatmeal until they die and call my food inedible slop seasoned with the blasted fever and hoodoo of heathens... I'd be terribly amused and would love to warm a chair by her tea anytime. But then I take perverse delight indulging rather impotent boorish behavior. However, Christopher Brady, sounds like love lost to 4e by such whisper campaigns of recent still bothers you.

That brings back memories of misbegotten youth. :cool:

However, your lament also reads of tissue fighting anonymous quotes with anonymous quotes, accusing with "people say..." of all that "people say..." gossip you yourself revile. Anecdotes are funny like that.

Either way, after playing both 3e and 4e, I can confidently say a pox on both houses. Glad to be done with them. And you can quote me on that, too.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;826964If rules systems were copyrightable, then you'd have issues in which people could be arrested for sharing rulebooks.

That's not how copyright works.

The towering edifice of ignorance you've woven here is dazzling.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;827264That's totally fair.  For me, as a DM, I've found the Save or Die tends to force one side of the playing group to sit back and watch the magic users do stuff.  

I've seldom had any complaints about magic-users weakening or taking out the opposition from a safe distance so the others don't have to risk their necks wading into combat with full strength opponents. Just like real life infantry units are happy to see an artillery or air strike take out the the bunker with the machine guns so they don't have to do it the hard (and much more dangerous) way.

In early editions of D&D, PCs are fragile and die quickly and easily -- a fourth level fighter (a HERO) will average only 18 hit points (22 if he gets a +1 bonus from Con) in 0e and not much better in B/X or 1e -- which makes doing things action movie hero style (i.e. charging the bunker instead of calling in the artillery/air strike to soften it up first) tend to be fatal.  Adding to this fragility, healing magic in early D&D is something that generally only happens after combat ends.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;827159The key point, is that people lied, made up stuff or otherwise gamer policed 4e, to make sure that they could keep their 3.x stuff, and some how hope to change the design decision, making WoTC abandon 4e, in favour of keeping pumping out stuff for 3.x.

Then Pathfinder came out and all the disgruntled fans flocked and believed the marketing hype, even when it was proven untenable.  You can't improve and keep the same.


This is what happened, and still happened until WoTC dropped 4e.  People were making up stories as to why they didn't want to switch to a new system.  As if admitting that they liked their little gaming corner was somehow 'wrong', so they needed an excuse to not look up and see what the 'new hotness' might be about.  They even managed to get people who never knew anything about 4e to believe the lies.  Not cool.


The only thing that bothers me, is people's unwillingness to try something new.  It bothers me, but I can understand it, and frankly, I can do nothing about other than shrug my shoulders and go back to my gaming collection.

I am not here to change people's minds, I'm here to help inform, or more often, give my opinion on a subject, it is up to the reader to decide whether or not to 'listen' and disagree, or agree.


Never said it was a problem, and I don't have a problem with what Paizo has done.  What they did was business smart, and I admire them for it.  They read the market correctly and was rewarded for it.

That is why they're still in business while multitudes of others are not.

This is all such a pile of shit but it kind of crystalizes your take much more clearly to me.  Here's the real (and much shorter) story:

Chris Brady: I was excited for PF and so I jumped right into the forums during the playtest.  But people were real assholes to me and now I hate Paizo and PF fans.  So I'll spend the rest of my internet days railing on how ignorant PF fans are for not noticing the problems with it that I do and for being such gullible sheep who are so afraid of trying anything new that they actually make shit up just to justify keeping on playing PF.

Quote from: Flashman;827401This is all such a pile of shit but it kind of crystalizes your take much more clearly to me.  Here's the real (and much shorter) story:
...

Which, when broken down so concisely makes something painfully obvious.

Get over it.

Just play what you like, talk about the things that excite you, share the stuff that tickles your fancy. Don't be a butthurt biter gamer. It's pure nonsense. All that misplaced anger is going to poison your soul.

Love,

Quote from: Flashman;827401This is all such a pile of shit but it kind of crystalizes your take much more clearly to me.  Here's the real (and much shorter) story:

Chris Brady: I was excited for PF and so I jumped right into the forums during the playtest.  But people were real assholes to me and now I hate Paizo and PF fans.  So I'll spend the rest of my internet days railing on how ignorant PF fans are for not noticing the problems with it that I do and for being such gullible sheep who are so afraid of trying anything new that they actually make shit up just to justify keeping on playing PF.

Is that your experience?  I'm sorry you had that.  I left after the first time anyone tried to post anything on that mess.  I've been there since and moderation has gotten much better now, I recommend checking it out now.  Other than the usual Fighter haters (and what is up with that?  Why are some people so against having Fighters as competent as Wizards/Druids/Clerics anyway?  Whatever) it's pretty open to every one.

On topic, and which I apologize for derailing this thread for the past three pages, I don't see this actually adversely affecting anything, to be honest.  People will still make stuff up for 5e.  I honestly doubt that Wizards would as controlling or as tight fisted over their IP like Palladium Books has been known to be, for example.  Or the Tolkien Estate has been reputed to be.

Quote from: Flashman;827143Hell, I would argue the closest D&D came to killing the industry was the mid to late 90's, when TSR was tottering on the brink. But the hobby survived very well.  As a gamer, there are an amazing amount of ttrpgs to choose from; for me the last 15 years has been THE golden age for gaming.

By that time though there were enough other RPGs out there that had TSR and D&D vanished that the RPG industry would have gone on. Moreso had several of those rival companies not been bleeding themselves to death chasing after the CCG craze.

That and wed have still had in place the fan sites to keep games alive like the Spelljammer, Gamma World, and Star Frontiers ones did to one degree or another. Or like when the Gold Box SSI PC games for D&D ended. Players kept working with it well into the 2000s and beyond. By the tine I left the FRUA group there were dozens of modules and thousands of sprite packs produced for it.

Looking around at just one gaming store, in one little city, I have to say, now that the OGL is dead, I have to agree with Flashman, we ARE in the Golden Age of Gaming.

The fall of TSR was bad, but now, we have so many new games because of it.  I'm quite happy to be living now.