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: 5647588" data-attributes="member: 73683"><p>My "prior point" was that I don't believe that most gaming groups have the knowledge, inclination, or time to explore the sea of fringe gaming options available to them as an alternative to Pathfinder or D&D.</p><p></p><p>So am I. I was simply providing reasons for which a 3.5 player might eventually decide to play 4e again. Whether or not he becomes an ongoing player is another matter, but it's certainly possible that he will. I've heard of tons of people who did exactly that (dismiss 4e after their first experience with it, then try it a year or two later and suddenly enjoy the hell out of it).</p><p></p><p>That's fine. I really don't feel that this is an outlandish claim. I'm basically saying nothing more than that opinions can change, and that people play games for reasons <em>other</em> than the fact that the game in question is their favorite game ever.</p><p></p><p>Why do you find this highly entertaining? 4e is hurting because it has an actively supported competitor. Is this truly something that you don't believe, or is this just disagreement for its own sake?</p><p></p><p>I do not believe that Trailblazer is an alternative to 3.5 in the same way that Pathfinder is an alternative to 3.5. If you do, that's up to you to reconcile.</p><p></p><p>Sure, some do. Hell, I've run 4e games for people who would have rather been playing 3e or Pathfinder.</p><p></p><p>So, I mean, there goes <em>that</em> argument.</p><p></p><p>The point is as follows:</p><p></p><p>1. People have many reasons for playing a game. "It's my favorite game," is one of those reasons, along with <em>many others</em>. Not all of those reasons have to be present in order for a person to play a game.</p><p></p><p>2. Active support is a major draw for a game. This is pretty much inarguable, and is the sole reason Pathfinder RPG exists - Paizo created it so that their adventure path customers would have a currently-supported system with which to play their adventures. We can safely file "active support" under the reasons for which people play certain games.</p><p></p><p>3. When 4e came along, 3.5 was no longer supported. Some people chose to keep playing 3.5 instead of 4e, because they liked 3.5 more than 4e. Eventually (and we know this to be true because you and I have both seen it with our own eyes on this very forum on numerous occasions), <strong><em>some</em></strong> of those 3.5 players would eventually end up playing 4e, for any of the reasons alluded to in point #1.</p><p></p><p>4. Given that "active support" is one of those reasons, we can agree that some of the people who would eventually migrate from 3.5 to 4e would list "active support" among their reasons for doing so.</p><p></p><p>5. Pathfinder is an actively supported game. Someone who might have previously moved to 4e from 3.5 because 4e provides active support <strong><em>now</em></strong> has the option of moving to Pathfinder instead.</p><p></p><p>6. Since we already know that these people prefer 3.5 to 4e, it stands to reason that they would prefer Pathfinder to 4e (it is universally accepted that Pathfinder more closely resembles 3.5 than 4e does). Accordingly, if they were willing to make the switch to 4e, they should also be willing to make the switch to Pathfinder.</p><p></p><p>7. Given that Pathfinder undoubtedly is a more enticing choice of game to them than 4e is, rational choice leads us to conclude that these people would switch from 3.5 to Pathfinder instead of switching from 3.5 to 4e. Thus, Pathfinder's existence has prevented these players from becoming a part of 4e's ongoing player base.</p><p></p><p>I cannot explain it more clearly than that, I'm afraid.</p><p></p><p>It is. Ease of DMing is a strength of a number of systems. Ease of DMing alone does not guarantee popularity with DMs.</p><p></p><p>I believe that the hardcore tabletop gaming crowd (read: the guys who are so into it that they come online to talk about it with other people who are so into it that they come online to talk about it) prefers Pathfinder to a disproportionate degree when compared to the tabletop RPG player base as a whole. And, of these people, most are DMs.</p><p></p><p>I think that this is an easy mistake to make (and one a lot of Pathfinder enthusiasts clearly do). The player base for D&D is much, much larger than you give it credit for, and I don't think the majority of D&D gamers have more than a passing awareness that something called Pathfinder exists.</p><p></p><p>Yes, there are, and no, you can't. But I'm really not talking about those people (aside from the handful who really dislike 4e but will still play it anyway and grumble about it the whole time).</p><p></p><p>All of these are options. I don't believe that they are particularly popular options, and I don't think that they would be particularly popular options if Pathfinder didn't exist.</p><p></p><p>Absolutely. I'm not doubting that. But all this proves is that people want to have their cake and eat it too. If Pathfinder hadn't panned out, a lot of them would have lowered their expectations accordingly.</p><p></p><p>Yes, some of them would.</p><p></p><p><em><strong>Obviously</strong></em>. If need for support <strong><em>were</em></strong> a big deal for these people, they'd be playing a game with a high level of support, like D&D or Pathfinder.</p><p></p><p>Some of them don't. Some of them are ambivalent. Some like it but don't want to invest in a whole new set of books for what they feel is a marginal improvement. Some have other reasons. You keep casting groups in monolithic lighting: "3.5 players don't like Pathfinder," "Pathfinder didn't steal any market from D&D," etc.</p><p></p><p>I'm pretty sure that you have absolutely no way of knowing what the net change actually is, at all.</p><p></p><p>No, just the niche games. Which, of course, is most of them.</p><p></p><p>It doesn't force me into anything. I don't believe that non-D&D RPGs come anywhere close to the level of popularity of D&D-based RPGs, and that the only current D&D-based RPG with any substantial level of exposure (that isn't actually a D&D game itself) is Pathfinder.</p><p></p><p>I did, when I responded. I still don't think there's any way you could have reached that conclusion unless you came into this discussion actually believing that to be my position.</p><p></p><p>Sure. I don't think they'd figured out what they were going to do yet, though (as a collective group). Most people were saying they'd just stick with 3.5 (or whatever D&D they'd been playing).</p><p></p><p>Right, it's "I don't have interest in going <em>there</em>, and I'm happy <em>here</em>, so I don't really see the need to look elsewhere right now."</p><p></p><p>Sure. That's neither here nor there, though. Different discussion for a different day.</p><p></p><p>It was an example for the sake of illustration. You can replace 2nd-favorite with 3rd-favorite or 4th-favorite or on down the list. The important thing is for you to understand that not being 1st-favorite does not mean being disliked.</p><p></p><p>I don't think I am. There's a lot of them, but there's a lot of other people too.</p><p></p><p>Groups don't really have collective 6th-favorites.</p><p></p><p>I dismissed the less popular ones because they're (way) less popular, and because I don't believe that any of them would have risen to the position that Pathfinder did in the event of its nonexistence. That's all.</p><p></p><p>Absolutely.</p><p></p><p>Absolutely.</p><p></p><p>I don't think it speaks any more than that I think people will play their second-favorite game under certain circumstances.</p><p></p><p>I think the majority of our disagreement comes down to differing perceptions of how large certain groups of gamers are. I don't think there's anything that either of us can do to convince the other that their perception of the community is far off, so it's probably best just to leave it at that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dannager, post: 5647588, member: 73683"] My "prior point" was that I don't believe that most gaming groups have the knowledge, inclination, or time to explore the sea of fringe gaming options available to them as an alternative to Pathfinder or D&D. So am I. I was simply providing reasons for which a 3.5 player might eventually decide to play 4e again. Whether or not he becomes an ongoing player is another matter, but it's certainly possible that he will. I've heard of tons of people who did exactly that (dismiss 4e after their first experience with it, then try it a year or two later and suddenly enjoy the hell out of it). That's fine. I really don't feel that this is an outlandish claim. I'm basically saying nothing more than that opinions can change, and that people play games for reasons [I]other[/I] than the fact that the game in question is their favorite game ever. Why do you find this highly entertaining? 4e is hurting because it has an actively supported competitor. Is this truly something that you don't believe, or is this just disagreement for its own sake? I do not believe that Trailblazer is an alternative to 3.5 in the same way that Pathfinder is an alternative to 3.5. If you do, that's up to you to reconcile. Sure, some do. Hell, I've run 4e games for people who would have rather been playing 3e or Pathfinder. So, I mean, there goes [I]that[/I] argument. The point is as follows: 1. People have many reasons for playing a game. "It's my favorite game," is one of those reasons, along with [I]many others[/I]. Not all of those reasons have to be present in order for a person to play a game. 2. Active support is a major draw for a game. This is pretty much inarguable, and is the sole reason Pathfinder RPG exists - Paizo created it so that their adventure path customers would have a currently-supported system with which to play their adventures. We can safely file "active support" under the reasons for which people play certain games. 3. When 4e came along, 3.5 was no longer supported. Some people chose to keep playing 3.5 instead of 4e, because they liked 3.5 more than 4e. Eventually (and we know this to be true because you and I have both seen it with our own eyes on this very forum on numerous occasions), [B][I]some[/I][/B] of those 3.5 players would eventually end up playing 4e, for any of the reasons alluded to in point #1. 4. Given that "active support" is one of those reasons, we can agree that some of the people who would eventually migrate from 3.5 to 4e would list "active support" among their reasons for doing so. 5. Pathfinder is an actively supported game. Someone who might have previously moved to 4e from 3.5 because 4e provides active support [B][I]now[/I][/B] has the option of moving to Pathfinder instead. 6. Since we already know that these people prefer 3.5 to 4e, it stands to reason that they would prefer Pathfinder to 4e (it is universally accepted that Pathfinder more closely resembles 3.5 than 4e does). Accordingly, if they were willing to make the switch to 4e, they should also be willing to make the switch to Pathfinder. 7. Given that Pathfinder undoubtedly is a more enticing choice of game to them than 4e is, rational choice leads us to conclude that these people would switch from 3.5 to Pathfinder instead of switching from 3.5 to 4e. Thus, Pathfinder's existence has prevented these players from becoming a part of 4e's ongoing player base. I cannot explain it more clearly than that, I'm afraid. It is. Ease of DMing is a strength of a number of systems. Ease of DMing alone does not guarantee popularity with DMs. I believe that the hardcore tabletop gaming crowd (read: the guys who are so into it that they come online to talk about it with other people who are so into it that they come online to talk about it) prefers Pathfinder to a disproportionate degree when compared to the tabletop RPG player base as a whole. And, of these people, most are DMs. I think that this is an easy mistake to make (and one a lot of Pathfinder enthusiasts clearly do). The player base for D&D is much, much larger than you give it credit for, and I don't think the majority of D&D gamers have more than a passing awareness that something called Pathfinder exists. Yes, there are, and no, you can't. But I'm really not talking about those people (aside from the handful who really dislike 4e but will still play it anyway and grumble about it the whole time). All of these are options. I don't believe that they are particularly popular options, and I don't think that they would be particularly popular options if Pathfinder didn't exist. Absolutely. I'm not doubting that. But all this proves is that people want to have their cake and eat it too. If Pathfinder hadn't panned out, a lot of them would have lowered their expectations accordingly. Yes, some of them would. [I][B]Obviously[/B][/I]. If need for support [B][I]were[/I][/B] a big deal for these people, they'd be playing a game with a high level of support, like D&D or Pathfinder. Some of them don't. Some of them are ambivalent. Some like it but don't want to invest in a whole new set of books for what they feel is a marginal improvement. Some have other reasons. You keep casting groups in monolithic lighting: "3.5 players don't like Pathfinder," "Pathfinder didn't steal any market from D&D," etc. I'm pretty sure that you have absolutely no way of knowing what the net change actually is, at all. No, just the niche games. Which, of course, is most of them. It doesn't force me into anything. I don't believe that non-D&D RPGs come anywhere close to the level of popularity of D&D-based RPGs, and that the only current D&D-based RPG with any substantial level of exposure (that isn't actually a D&D game itself) is Pathfinder. I did, when I responded. I still don't think there's any way you could have reached that conclusion unless you came into this discussion actually believing that to be my position. Sure. I don't think they'd figured out what they were going to do yet, though (as a collective group). Most people were saying they'd just stick with 3.5 (or whatever D&D they'd been playing). Right, it's "I don't have interest in going [I]there[/I], and I'm happy [I]here[/I], so I don't really see the need to look elsewhere right now." Sure. That's neither here nor there, though. Different discussion for a different day. It was an example for the sake of illustration. You can replace 2nd-favorite with 3rd-favorite or 4th-favorite or on down the list. The important thing is for you to understand that not being 1st-favorite does not mean being disliked. I don't think I am. There's a lot of them, but there's a lot of other people too. Groups don't really have collective 6th-favorites. I dismissed the less popular ones because they're (way) less popular, and because I don't believe that any of them would have risen to the position that Pathfinder did in the event of its nonexistence. That's all. Absolutely. Absolutely. I don't think it speaks any more than that I think people will play their second-favorite game under certain circumstances. I think the majority of our disagreement comes down to differing perceptions of how large certain groups of gamers are. I don't think there's anything that either of us can do to convince the other that their perception of the community is far off, so it's probably best just to leave it at that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Paizo Announcement and Prognostication
Top