Pathfinder 1E Paizo Announcement and Prognostication

[Mark CMG]

Please, folks, remember to address the content, not the person. Thanks.

*edit* Since you decided to moderate rather than just advise. And since I was asked to address the content -

Mark CMG: "D&D isn't the default TTRPG."

Me: "Sure it is, it's got the most brand awareness and it's where most people started."

Mark CMG: "That's not what default means. What people are playing matters more."

Me: "I think more people still play D&D, but it doesn't matter because that's not what I was talking about."

Mark CMG: "Sure you were, here's what you said: {insert me talking to BryonD}"

Me: "Nope, still not what I was talking about, but funny you should bring that up since I was talking about a situation in which D&D totally would be the default under even your definition anyway."

Please don't fabricate quotes by me (or anyone for that matter). I post plenty enough that can be quoted directly without resorting to such tactics. It's akin to lying and purposefully inflamatory.

 

[Dannager]

Please don't fabricate quotes by me (or anyone for that matter). I post plenty enough that can be quoted directly without resorting to such tactics. It's akin to lying and purposefully inflamatory.

I think it's pretty obvious that those are not direct quotes (I even went so far as to disclaim the entire post as tl;dr), and I think they're also pretty accurate distillations of what was being said. If you feel that I misunderstood you in a critical fashion, you are absolutely free to show me where and how.

But really, don't try and push the idea that summarizing a conversation is "akin to lying and purposefully inflammatory". It's not, and you know it. So instead of complaining about my going way out of my way to try and understand exactly where you're coming from on this very odd tangent over exactly what the word "default" means, how about you work with me to reach that goal, and maybe be a touch less hostile along the way?

 

[Mark CMG]

(snip)

It certainly seems to be accepted by the mods, so who am I to say you shouldn't misquote people while putting your own spin on what was said? Nevertheless, I find it egregious and suggest if you wish to engage me in discussion you refrain from that practice. I said my piece and repeatedly pointed you toward my position in other posts which you seemingly ignored. I wish you well in the future and suggest you avoid classifying people as hostile when they do not appreciate your style of recontextualizing their statements. It's another unproductive behavior you have displayed.

 

[Dannager]

It certainly seems to be accepted by the mods, so who am I to say you shouldn't misquote people while putting your own spin on what was said?

If you feel that I have misquoted you in any substantive way, I would like to once again remind you that you are free to explain where and how I have done so.

Nevertheless, I find it egregious and suggest if you wish to engage me in discussion you refrain from that practice.

That is a shame, but if that's the case I don't think that you really have any cause to be labeling my behavior unproductive. I've offered a way forward in this discussion, and you have repeatedly declined it.

I said my piece and repeatedly pointed you toward my position in other posts which you seemingly ignored.

And I purposefully did not summarize any of those posts, because I did not want to offer a summary of a conversation in which I did not take place.

I wish you well in the future and suggest you avoid classifying people as hostile when they do not appreciate your style of recontextualizing their statements.

You have repeatedly called my behavior inflammatory and akin to lying. That is both demonstrably untrue and hostile.

It's another unproductive behavior you have displayed.

See above.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I am pretty certain that the name comes from a specific model bf goodrich made early on. Up to then i think the more generic term was fastener.

I am pretty sure that you are correct, and I am also fairly certain that Zipper (with capital letter) is still around as such.

And of course not all generifications (is that a word? I guess it is now...) are positive. The term 'doozy' was coined because the Dusenberg was prone to mechanical, umm, quirks. (Beautiful car though - the SJ is one of my favorite vehicles ever.)

The Auld Grump

 

[Umbran]

Gentlemen,

I think it is time I ask you both to disengage, please. Stop replying to each others' posts, before this gets any more ugly than it has. Thank you, both.

 

[BryonD]

And that's you. You're dedicated enough to actively explore other options, and you clearly believe that you would be able to find a group of people comfortable enough with also exploring those options to find a game that you like better than the "default" choice.

I don't think that applies to a lot of gamers.

So you are saying that 4E didn't get a fair consideration from enough people?

Those are the sorts of people I would avoid playing with, even if I made Pathfinder my game of choice. I wouldn't tolerate a gamer at my table saying "Pathfinder RPG sucks," - I'd ask them to keep their inflamed opinion to themselves, and it would reflect poorly on them in my mind.

This is a total red herring which has nothing to do with the point. The point is, people who don't like 4E won't play 4E. Though I guess you are correctly pointing out that I'm only counting the outspoken 4E dislikers, and if we included the people who just kept it to themselves the group would be even larger.

The players will, by and large, play what the DM wants them to play, whether because they have no strong preference themselves, or because they'd prefer to play a game with a system that isn't necessarily their first choice rather than play no game at all.

Levels of play favor DM adoption.

And this does nothing to change the point that this will favor the more popular game. If we assume that 4E is more popular then more DMs will prefer it and therefore the net balance of players playing against their first choice will benefit 4E. If you are saying this hurts 4E because PF is more popular than 4E then I will agree.

What I'm saying is that we could have seen a situation where a lot of gamers initially stuck with 3.5, but eventually migrated to 4e simply because they'd prefer an actively-supported game rather than a game with little to no support (just as we typically see with an edition change).

Why would they play a game they don't like?

There are a ton on 4E detractors who also dislike PF and still play 3.5. They are a perfect test group for your theory. If you were right that group would be steadily migrating to 4E. It isn't happening. This is because you theory is wrong. Your theory is wrong because it fails to account for the fact that people will leave the hobby altogether before they will play a game they don't like. And even without PF there are tons of great alternatives that beat leaving the hobby.

Instead, it wasn't long before it was clear that those who preferred 3.5 would have active support in the form of Pathfinder, and so that eventual migration never took place. Those who stuck with 3.5 but wanted to play a supported game now had two choices: 4e or Pathfinder. They overwhelmingly chose the one that was most similar to the game they were already playing.

This is just a thinly veiled insult that amounts to little more than "people don't play 4E because they fear change.". It is BS.

You cannot discount the tremendous value that active support has to a game. And let's be honest: if Pathfinder hadn't come around, there really would not be anything on the d20/3.5 scene that comes anywhere close to the level of professionalism and support that Pathfinder has.

I'm not. 3.5 would not be nearly what it currently is without the influence of PF. You and I agree 100% on that.

Where we disagree is that you then take a wild leap and presume that without that PF option that everyone would ignore their own tastes and become RPG lemmings throwing themselves into 4E.

You cannot discount the tremendous determent that not liking a game has on playing that game.

Again, I disagree for all of the reasons outlined above.

I respect you opinion.
I don't respect any of the reasons you have provided.


Bottom line: people won't play a game they don't like. You have not made the slightest effort to address that issue. And if the market was not already rumbling that direction, Paizo would never have dared choose the path they did. And that is all at the feet of 4E.

 

[BryonD]

I didn't say there wasn't a leg up. But I did suggest that it is much closer to one-to-one (field versus D&D) than one hundred fold (D&D over the field)

...

"Massively more than anything else" singularly (perhaps not PF) but my assertion is that the cumulative amount of interest in RP games others than D&D is not massively outweighed by the interest in D&D proper.

Well, there is our distinction. I doubt even "the field" isn't still heavily outweighed by D&D, but certainly I wouldn't say anything like 100-1 for THAT comparison.

But, I don't think that is a very meaningful comparison. When all is said and done no other game gets the benefit of "the field", to the contrary the rest of the field is just further competition. Comparing Game A to Game B makes a lot more sense than comparing Game A to the sum of Games B through NNN.

 

[Mark CMG]

Well, there is our distinction. I doubt even "the field" isn't still heavily outweighed by D&D, but certainly I wouldn't say anything like 100-1 for THAT comparison.

But, I don't think that is a very meaningful comparison. When all is said and done no other game gets the benefit of "the field", to the contrary the rest of the field is just further competition. Comparing Game A to Game B makes a lot more sense than comparing Game A to the sum of Games B through NNN.

I guess for so long D&D has been held up as the RPG market heavyweight, outselling all others combined by a good margin, that it is surprising that one seems to be taking it on head-to-head, let alone that the field might not be outweighed by it any longer.

 

[BryonD]

I guess for so long D&D has been held up as the RPG market heavyweight, outselling all others combined by a good margin, that it is surprising that one seems to be taking it on head-to-head, let alone that the field might not be outweighed by it any longer.

Agreed.

I think 4E's loses have brought the bar down and the OGL supporting 3E has provided that one contender the foundation to reach the bar.

For me, I still count PF as part of the "D&D" baseline and not the field, because that existing foundation is a huge part of how we got here.

If you call it part of the field then obviously I agree D&D does not outweigh that field.

But the very fact that PF is now huge without actually BEING D&D is a huge change that will probably never be undone. If an awesome new game comes along next month, I don't think the lack of the name D&D will be as big a problem as it used to be. It will still be a burden, but the playing field has dramatically changed.