Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

[Bedrockgames]

Yes. Typically the Wizards.

I found its largely a flavor concern since most people I game with rarely play the same class all the time. They just like the idea of wizards who start out weak and grow powerful. It was a trade off because you do begin the game quite weak and squishy and you have to wait things out till you advance(before 3e even more so because it took wizards so long to advance).

Personally I favored fighters, bards and thieved, only playing the occasional wizard.

 

[Dannager]

But your examples are demonstrating the problem of blaming user error on a device that functions perfectly well when used correctly.

If it helps your understanding, you can feel free to replace "flips when driven off-road" with "flips when driven in 100-degree weather", and "just because you don't drive off-road" with "just because you live in Siberia".

 

[Bedrockgames]

No.

The SUV analogy was for one purpose: to demonstrate the very basic principle that one individual being unaware of a problem does not demonstrate the absence of the problem. It merely demonstrates the individual's ignorance of it.

Please don't try to extend the analogy any further than its intent. It bothers me that I'm forced to resort to them in the first place. These are the sort of points that should not have to be established mid-discussion. Furthermore, I'm not going to entertain the notion that you're so unable to parse the purpose of the analogy that it actually harms your ability to follow the topic. I do not believe for a second that anyone participating in this discussion is that dense.

But it isn't objectively a problem. Whether the balance approach in a given edition is an issue depends on your play preferences. That large numbers of people prefer 3e to 4e ( and vice versa) demonsates this. Sure 3e wizards and power discrepancies are a problem for some gamers, but is not a problem for all or even most gamers. What you see as a bug, some see as a feature.

 

[TheUltramark]

No.

The SUV analogy was for one purpose: to demonstrate the very basic principle that one individual being unaware of a problem does not demonstrate the absence of the problem. It merely demonstrates the individual's ignorance of it.

Please don't try to extend the analogy any further than its intent. It bothers me that I'm forced to resort to them in the first place. These are the sort of points that should not have to be established mid-discussion.

see, I differ with you here
I think the purpose of your analogy was really to insult the intelligence of some of the posters here. Also - and this is way more to your point, I enjoy playing d&D4e, and my friends do too. I assure you we are not "ignorant" (your word) just because we ignore the flaws of a particular rule set.

 

[BryonD]

If it helps your understanding, you can feel free to replace "flips when driven off-road" with "flips when driven in 100-degree weather", and "just because you don't drive off-road" with "just because you live in Siberia".

So how do you explain all us Siberians driving around in 100 degree weather without problem?

 

[IronWolf]

The SUV analogy was for one purpose: to demonstrate the very basic principle that one individual being unaware of a problem does not demonstrate the absence of the problem. It merely demonstrates the individual's ignorance of it.

Your analogy is still a poor example to try to make your point. It just muddies the water and is more likely to turn us to talking about how your analogy is not an accurate one or how it doesn't apply.

See - you say something has a problem. It very well may be a problem for *you*. That does not mean it applies to the majority of people playing the game. Which quickly turns a good portion of your arguments to "My way is the one true way so if I see a problem that means the system is broken." That simply isn't true.

That is as absurd as me listing my problems with 4e and then saying because it is a problem for me the system is obviously broken as a fact because I experienced a problem with it.

 

[Dannager]

I found its largely a flavor concern since most people I game with rarely play the same class all the time. They just like the idea of wizards who start out weak and grow powerful. It was a trade off because you do begin the game quite weak and squishy and you have to wait things out till you advance(before 3e even more so because it took wizards so long to advance).

Personally I favored fighters, bards and thieved, only playing the occasional wizard.

And this is, as we've been over, a poor way to design a game. You are designing it in such a way that a given character feels underwhelming for months or years, and then feels overwhelming for months or years after that. It is likely that, prior to the point at which the switch happens, the spellcaster's player isn't having as much fun as he might otherwise have, and it is similarly likely that, after the point at which the switch happens, the other members of the party who are not spellcasters are not having as much fun as they might otherwise have.

This sort of "low-resolution" game design strikes me as having relatively low levels of appeal to the market at large, and that's why I deride it as an example of poor game design.

 

[BryonD]

is more likely to turn us to talking about how your analogy is not an accurate one or how it doesn't apply.

He probably prefers that to confronting the PF/4E conversation.

That is as absurd as me listing my problems with 4e and then saying because it is a problem for me the system is obviously broken as a fact because I experienced a problem with it.

Yeah, dude, 4E its like a car that, like, EXPLODES man, when you, like, put the key in it, and everybody like DIES. BUMMER.

 

[Dannager]

see, I differ with you here
I think the purpose of your analogy was really to insult the intelligence of some of the posters here.

You are free to think what you like. I mean, you're wrong, but you can still think it.

Also - and this is way more to your point, I enjoy playing d&D4e, and my friends do too. I assure you we are not "ignorant" (your word) just because we ignore the flaws of a particular rule set.

Isn't that the very definition of willful ignorance?

 

[BryonD]

And this is, as we've been over, a poor way to design a game.

The marketplace begs to differ.