Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Paizo Announcement and Prognostication
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dannager" data-source="post: 5647246" data-attributes="member: 73683"><p>No.</p><p></p><p>That's absolutely true.</p><p></p><p>Unless they have another overriding reason for playing it, like the fact that 4e is the only game in their area, or because they like official support over dead games (remember, we were discussing a hypothetical situation in which Pathfinder RPG never happened), or because their friends convinced them to give it another shot, or...</p><p></p><p>You don't think this supports the argument that one's personal relative opinion of a game doesn't necessarily dictate whether or not they will play that game?</p><p></p><p>I think it hurts 4e because Pathfinder is more popular amongst the hardcore tabletop gamer than it is among the casual gamer, and the DM falls into the hardcore tabletop gamer category <em>overwhelmingly</em> more often than your average player does. There are any number of reasons why that is the case, many of which are speculative on my part and so I won't bother discussing them here.</p><p></p><p>There is a difference between <em>not liking a game</em>, and <em>liking a game less than another game</em>. It stands to reason that a huge number of Pathfinder players (or 3.5 players, as the case may be) don't <em>actively dislike</em> 4e, but instead merely prefer 3.5 or Pathfinder.</p><p></p><p>It is entirely reasonable that, in our Pathfinder-less example, a person could try 4e and decide he likes 3.5 better (even if he doesn't dislike 4e). He might eventually decide, however, that the difference between the two is outweighed by the ever-increasing active support for the current edition, and grow tired of the stagnant 3.5. Or his tastes may change. Or he may discover he didn't get a good look at 4e the first time around. Or his friends may want to play 4e. Or any number of things.</p><p></p><p>A person's initial decision to continue playing 3.5 over 4e <strong><em>does not in any way</em></strong> guarantee that they will never make the switch to 4e.</p><p></p><p>What I'm saying, here, is that the fact that Pathfinder was created <strong><em>removed</em></strong> some of those reasons a player might eventually make the switch - active support, an end to stagnation, etc. This is turn <em>undoubtedly</em> led to some people - who might have otherwise eventually switched to 4e for those reasons - <em>instead</em> switching to Pathfinder.</p><p></p><p>Not necessarily, since (again) some of the reasons for this migration were obviated by Pathfinder's creation. The ones remaining with 3.5 are doing so because, clearly, the prospect of a currently-supported game is not a large concern for them. They would have to be provided with <em>other</em> reasons to switch.</p><p></p><p>I don't think that you have any way of knowing this, and I've actually heard of some people who <em>have</em> switched directly from 3.5 to 4e in the last two years.</p><p></p><p>I really don't think that this is the case for most people. I think that most people have nowhere <em>near</em> the strong opinions about Game X or Game Y that your average internet edition warrior does. I think your average tabletop gamer is <em>way</em> more casual than you give them credit for, and plays primarily as a social experience (and is accordingly flexible to the desires of his gaming group). I think it is very unfortunate that there undoubtedly <em>are</em> some people like you describe, who would give up a hobby before playing a game they like perhaps a little less than another, but I don't think they make up the huge group you must think they do.</p><p></p><p>I don't think there are, really. The alternatives are basically unadvertised outside the internet and a (woefully small) word of mouth basis. They don't have anywhere <em>near</em> the level of support that either D&D or Pathfinder have. They might be great from a gameplay standpoint, but if that's all that it took for a game to be popular I think the hobby would look <em>very </em>different right now.</p><p></p><p>I'm sorry you choose to see it that way, but that is <strong><em>absolutely not</em></strong> how it was intended (and I actually don't think it's even supported by a liberal reading of what I wrote). I simply meant that those who stuck with 3.5 did so because they liked 3.5, and were comfortable with it, and when the option arose for them to move to a supported game that was very, very similar to the unsupported game they were already playing, many of them made the logical decision to jump to Pathfinder.</p><p></p><p>I don't think you should be reading things as though they were intended to be insulting by default, especially from me. I think my intent was very clear, and there's no way I would have written that to mean that the people who stuck with 3.5 are afraid of change.</p><p></p><p>No. This is a distortion of my position.</p><p></p><p>I'm saying that, without Pathfinder, <strong><em>some</em></strong> of the people who were playing 3.5 would eventually be presented with reasons to switch to 4e, and <strong><em>some</em></strong> of those people would find those reasons persuasive enough to actually make the switch. And I'm saying that Pathfinder <strong><em>removed</em></strong> some of those reasons by offering them to 3.5 players in a different package - one that many of them found more appealing because it was more in line with the sort of game they liked to play.</p><p></p><p>It has <em>some</em> level of deterrence associated with it, certainly. But I firmly believe that most gamers (the "internet hardcore" excluded) don't really give a rat's ass about the edition wars, don't really have particularly strong opinions one way or the other on 3.5/PF/4e, and if given the choice between playing their 2nd-favorite game or playing no game at all, they'll sit down and roll dice and still be pretty happy about the whole thing as long as they're cool with the people they're playing with.</p><p></p><p>And that's fine, but please take a moment to consider that my reasons and my argument are not as extreme as you've made them out to be. You've used a lot of very absolute terms in your rebuttals, and I don't think that this is the sort of discussions where those are appropriate.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dannager, post: 5647246, member: 73683"] No. That's absolutely true. Unless they have another overriding reason for playing it, like the fact that 4e is the only game in their area, or because they like official support over dead games (remember, we were discussing a hypothetical situation in which Pathfinder RPG never happened), or because their friends convinced them to give it another shot, or... You don't think this supports the argument that one's personal relative opinion of a game doesn't necessarily dictate whether or not they will play that game? I think it hurts 4e because Pathfinder is more popular amongst the hardcore tabletop gamer than it is among the casual gamer, and the DM falls into the hardcore tabletop gamer category [I]overwhelmingly[/I] more often than your average player does. There are any number of reasons why that is the case, many of which are speculative on my part and so I won't bother discussing them here. There is a difference between [I]not liking a game[/I], and [I]liking a game less than another game[/I]. It stands to reason that a huge number of Pathfinder players (or 3.5 players, as the case may be) don't [I]actively dislike[/I] 4e, but instead merely prefer 3.5 or Pathfinder. It is entirely reasonable that, in our Pathfinder-less example, a person could try 4e and decide he likes 3.5 better (even if he doesn't dislike 4e). He might eventually decide, however, that the difference between the two is outweighed by the ever-increasing active support for the current edition, and grow tired of the stagnant 3.5. Or his tastes may change. Or he may discover he didn't get a good look at 4e the first time around. Or his friends may want to play 4e. Or any number of things. A person's initial decision to continue playing 3.5 over 4e [B][I]does not in any way[/I][/B] guarantee that they will never make the switch to 4e. What I'm saying, here, is that the fact that Pathfinder was created [B][I]removed[/I][/B] some of those reasons a player might eventually make the switch - active support, an end to stagnation, etc. This is turn [I]undoubtedly[/I] led to some people - who might have otherwise eventually switched to 4e for those reasons - [I]instead[/I] switching to Pathfinder. Not necessarily, since (again) some of the reasons for this migration were obviated by Pathfinder's creation. The ones remaining with 3.5 are doing so because, clearly, the prospect of a currently-supported game is not a large concern for them. They would have to be provided with [I]other[/I] reasons to switch. I don't think that you have any way of knowing this, and I've actually heard of some people who [I]have[/I] switched directly from 3.5 to 4e in the last two years. I really don't think that this is the case for most people. I think that most people have nowhere [I]near[/I] the strong opinions about Game X or Game Y that your average internet edition warrior does. I think your average tabletop gamer is [I]way[/I] more casual than you give them credit for, and plays primarily as a social experience (and is accordingly flexible to the desires of his gaming group). I think it is very unfortunate that there undoubtedly [I]are[/I] some people like you describe, who would give up a hobby before playing a game they like perhaps a little less than another, but I don't think they make up the huge group you must think they do. I don't think there are, really. The alternatives are basically unadvertised outside the internet and a (woefully small) word of mouth basis. They don't have anywhere [I]near[/I] the level of support that either D&D or Pathfinder have. They might be great from a gameplay standpoint, but if that's all that it took for a game to be popular I think the hobby would look [I]very [/I]different right now. I'm sorry you choose to see it that way, but that is [B][I]absolutely not[/I][/B] how it was intended (and I actually don't think it's even supported by a liberal reading of what I wrote). I simply meant that those who stuck with 3.5 did so because they liked 3.5, and were comfortable with it, and when the option arose for them to move to a supported game that was very, very similar to the unsupported game they were already playing, many of them made the logical decision to jump to Pathfinder. I don't think you should be reading things as though they were intended to be insulting by default, especially from me. I think my intent was very clear, and there's no way I would have written that to mean that the people who stuck with 3.5 are afraid of change. No. This is a distortion of my position. I'm saying that, without Pathfinder, [B][I]some[/I][/B] of the people who were playing 3.5 would eventually be presented with reasons to switch to 4e, and [B][I]some[/I][/B] of those people would find those reasons persuasive enough to actually make the switch. And I'm saying that Pathfinder [B][I]removed[/I][/B] some of those reasons by offering them to 3.5 players in a different package - one that many of them found more appealing because it was more in line with the sort of game they liked to play. It has [I]some[/I] level of deterrence associated with it, certainly. But I firmly believe that most gamers (the "internet hardcore" excluded) don't really give a rat's ass about the edition wars, don't really have particularly strong opinions one way or the other on 3.5/PF/4e, and if given the choice between playing their 2nd-favorite game or playing no game at all, they'll sit down and roll dice and still be pretty happy about the whole thing as long as they're cool with the people they're playing with. And that's fine, but please take a moment to consider that my reasons and my argument are not as extreme as you've made them out to be. You've used a lot of very absolute terms in your rebuttals, and I don't think that this is the sort of discussions where those are appropriate. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Paizo Announcement and Prognostication
Top