Monte Cook back at wizards

[Pentius]

Something I've always wondered- what happens in a normal edition switch over?

How many people end up moving to the new edition just because there is more support for it?

How many people end up just quitting because they don't like the new direction, but there is no reason to keep bitching about it?


Also how many people get mad that there is an edition switch, even though they're not really buying any of the stuff for the current edition anymore anyway?


I wonder how much did Pathfinder benefit by being a very visible place for people to rally behind when they otherwise might have just moved on?



I think really what it shows is edition changes as they've been done in the past are kind of dumb.

Given human nature, especially in fandoms, I'm fairly sure that previous edition changes were just as rage-inspiring, at the time. However, lacking the more thorough integration with the internet we have now, it was harder to group up and hate together, and that is where the real, lasting hate thrives.

 

[Shemeska]

But maybe we'll see a 4.5E. Really, I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this possibility in this thread. Yeah, I know, no one wants to consider it.

You mean Essentials?

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Didn't you hear? Mike Mearls ruined everything.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/290165-mike-mearls-ruined-everything.html

Also, can someone explain to me why every single one of these threads, bar none, becomes a discussion about PF sales vs 4e sales? Is this really a fun or interesting topic to speculate on? I guess it must be.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/290165-mike-mearls-ruined-everything.html

Also, can someone explain to me why every single one of these threads, bar none, becomes a discussion about PF sales vs 4e sales? Is this really a fun or interesting topic to speculate on? I guess it must be.

My best guess is that some people actually do believe that Mearls ruined everything (D&D related).

Another thing is that, certain elements of the RPG fanbase enjoys chest-thumping "my-Edition-ca-beat-up-your-Edition" nonsense.

 

[Mr. Patient]

You mean Essentials?

I wish Essentials really was 4.5, but it isn't. With 3.0/3.5, you had a clean(ish) break, a whole new set of core rules that provided a complete game. Essentials is something more than just supplementary material, but neither is it really a complete set of new core rules. While it brought some great new stuff to the game, I feel like it left the in-print version somewhat of a mess. Updates and stealth errata are scattered across various books and documents, rendering a ton of material obsolete but still officially supported. And there's no obvious answer to the question "What books do I need to buy?". (I know some people will be along shortly to tell me what their answer to the question is, and that's great, and I'm not looking to get into an argument over it). Personally, I wouldn't want to run an Essentials-only game, because of the lack of support for rituals and the incomplete treasure/magic item system.

 

[M.L. Martin]

There is no such thing as a normal D&D edition change. When D&D changes, it changes big. Many other RPGs tend to have many more, smaller edition changes.

Well, some of this is that D&D is the 800-lb. gorilla, so even a small portion of its fanbase getting irritated looks big in this hobby. But I think it should be noted that it's only been two changes that have been dramatic--the two full edition changes shepherded by WotC. 1E->2E caused some controversy, but the mechanical changes were really on the scale of the new editions in most other RPGs. It's only been 3E and 4E that have dramatically rebuilt the game.

 

[mudbunny]

Here's my prediction.

The 40th anniversary of D&D is coming up.

WotC will offer, to the best of their legal rights, an updated set of core rules for each edition of D&D as a gift set.

At the same time, there will be a new edition of D&D, call it the Anniversary Edition, that will be similar to Savage Worlds or GURPS in that depending on what you want to do, you add various rule sets.

 

[mudbunny]

Stupid double post.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Also, can someone explain to me why every single one of these threads, bar none, becomes a discussion about PF sales vs 4e sales? Is this really a fun or interesting topic to speculate on? I guess it must be.

That isn't so hard to understand. If you present hard numbers or can make believe in hard numbers, you are demonstrating some objective truth.

Like in "4e is a great disaster" or, the other way round, "Pathfinder doesn't play a significant role".

 

[Pentius]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/290165-mike-mearls-ruined-everything.html

Also, can someone explain to me why every single one of these threads, bar none, becomes a discussion about PF sales vs 4e sales? Is this really a fun or interesting topic to speculate on? I guess it must be.

Well, you see, we can't just show each other our manparts(Code of Conduct and all), so we default to the next best thing: proving that our version of our niche hobby where we pretend to be magical elves is better than the other guy's version of our niche hobby where we pretend to be magical elves, as if we all haven't had any experience liking something that isn't the most popular thing of the day.

I win, of course, because I pretend to be a Half-orc, and everyone knows that adds, like, just a lot in the size area.