Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

[Banshee16]

Someone did in fact make this game . . .

That wasn't really the point of the experiment. Pushing the button, and having the subjects lose wasn't the point, so much as the manner selected to get to the point.....ie. that by having an authority figure claim that they would take responsibility for any harm inflicted on the "test subjects", the "true subject" would in fact inflict a greater degree of harm on the "test subject" than they would have otherwise done on their own...

It wasn't really about making a game that everyone else lost.

Banshee

 

[Hussar]

Umm, please correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure that there are those here who will have no problems doing just that, but...

Wasn't a large part of Pathfinder's design bridging the apparent gap between caster and non-caster? I'm not really all that familiar with Pathfinder to be honest, but, from what I've read here and other places, wasn't that a major concern during the development of Pathfinder?

So, instead of telling Danniger that the problem he's identified - the imbalance in play between caster and non-caster - doesn't exist, doesn't the design of Pathfinder actually speak directly to his criticism? Granted, it's done in a different way than 4e, that's fine. 4e hardly has the lock on how to do things.

But, if there was no problem, why did Pathfinder spend so much time fixing it?

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

That wasn't really the point of the experiment. Pushing the button, and having the subjects lose wasn't the point, so much as the manner selected to get to the point.....ie. that by having an authority figure claim that they would take responsibility for any harm inflicted on the "test subjects", the "true subject" would in fact inflict a greater degree of harm on the "test subject" than they would have otherwise done on their own...

It wasn't really about making a game that everyone else lost.

Banshee

Uh, I know all that. I was joking when I referenced Milgram.

That's one shock for you, Banshee.

 

[Dannager]

@Dannager

well, you win. Myself and every other 4e player are ridiculous, ignorant and clearly in the minority, and suffer the shame of playing the inferior game, both in substance and popularity.

Are we done with this yet?

Hi, it looks like you got flipped around at some point during this discussion.

I'm Dannager.

I play 4e. I'm one of this board's most vocal supporters of 4e, and I'm certainly one of the most active defenders of 4e.

Pretty much this whole thread has been me defending 4e's decision to make balance a priority.

How are you?

 

[Dannager]

Dannager is one of the biggest 4E boosters on ENworld and Paizo.

That much is certainly true.

He utterly despises Paizo fans

I don't have a very high opinion of Pathfinder RPG fans, but that's a general opinion as opposed to an opinion of any person in particular, and it stems not from their choice of game but the attitude they collectively take and encourage towards the rest of the tabletop gaming community. If you tell me you're a Pathfinder fan, it's not like I'm going to start out despising you.

and his contempt for Pathfinder and 3x is barely restrained beneath his "polite" veneer.

Careful, Shin. I try to maintain civility in the face of those who make no effort to do the same.

But you're just as off-the-mark here as anyone. I played 3.x for years and enjoyed it the whole time (and, in fact, defended it pretty vociferously against the anti-3.x crowd back when that was a thing). I also happen to enjoy Pathfinder (though I probably wouldn't find running a game as much fun as 4e). I think 4e's a better game, but that doesn't mean I have anything resembling contempt for PF. You'll also note that I like the Pathfinder setting (and the company Paizo) so much that I actively convert their APs to 4e and make those conversions publicly available for others to make use of. And finally, I spent a good chunk of the past couple of days having words with people trying to hate on Paizo for their decision to dive headfirst into the pre-painted plastic minis market.

You might consider adding a touch of nuance to your forum personality / internet super-villain dossiers.

 

[prosfilaes]

ah, but my point was simply to question the validity of unaccredited studies

Who on Earth accredits studies?

and raise the point that perhaps not everyone shops at amazon.com

Then you failed. If you want to argue that not everyone shops at amazon.com, say that. Of course, no one is going to care about your opinion, until you can provide a reason why Amazon buyers might be skewed in favor of Pathfinder.

There is no doubt there have been posts which really cast aspersions on someone based on what game they enjoy playing with their friends in their free time.

And you did that by casting aspersion on people based on what subject they care to discuss on a thread.

 

[prosfilaes]

Yes. We can argue over why you don't think it's a problem later. For right now, I'm trying to get one or two people to understand that there's a difference between not seeing a problem, and a problem not existing.

And some of us are trying to you to see that huge problems exist, and yet we don't have to care. D&D 4e has roughly 5000 problems, one for each language it's not translated into. These are show stoppers for literally billions of people who don't fluently speak a language D&D 4 is published in. It doesn't matter how many houserules they use, they can't play the game at any level. Is that a reason for us not to play D&D 4?

 

[Dannager]

And some of us are trying to you to see that huge problems exist, and yet we don't have to care. D&D 4e has roughly 5000 problems, one for each language it's not translated into. These are show stoppers for literally billions of people who don't fluently speak a language D&D 4 is published in.

Actually, I'd argue that the real showstopper is that the vast majority of those billions wouldn't come anywhere near actually playing the game even if it were translated into a language they spoke (which, of course, goes a long way towards explaining why they never pursued those translations in the first place), but I understand what you're getting at.

It doesn't matter how many houserules they use, they can't play the game at any level. Is that a reason for us not to play D&D 4?

I'm not saying that you shouldn't play the game you like just because others see problems with it. That would be a silly thing to say.

What I am saying is that balance is a worthy goal in game design, and the "I don't see any problems with balance in my D&D games," isn't really ammunition against that argument.

 

[Dark Mistress]

You guys do realize you are just going around in circles in this "debate" right? I mean reading this thread is like watching a dog chase it's own tail convinced if it just tries a little harder it will catch it's own tail.

 

[Dannager]

You guys do realize you are just going around in circles in this "debate" right? I mean reading this thread is like watching a dog chase it's own tail convinced if it just tries a little harder it will catch it's own tail.

If you've ever watched a dog actually catch its own tail, you know that the whole thing is totally worth it.