D&D 5E Gamehole Con Live Tweeting Perkins Panel

[Agamon]

oh there was some jerk behavior too, but the part where the game grew in 2 paths, and this being the only time it did, didn't help.

Would these guys have happily went along with 4e if the OGL and PF didn't exist? That doesn't seem likely, and there still would have been a 3.x/4e split.

The existence of PF sure didn't help the situation, but it doesn't look like the cause.

 

[Greatwyrm]

Oh, yeah, don't get me wrong. I love what Chris Perkins does. And maybe you're right-- they unleash him from time to time to drum up excitement. Probably he (and they) know exactly what they're doing. But I remember that one video they did awhile back where he dropped some info and Mearls got visibly uncomfortable (not angry or anything, just surprised).

I just read that OGL news and laughed when I saw that he'd said that and also talked about digital content. I mean, the party line up until this has been: "We're actively looking at these things. We don't have anything to announce yet."

I suppose there is the off chance they need someone with plausible deniability to say things. Perkins says something off-the-cuff to settle the mob for a bit, but Mearls can still tell the next person up the org chart that he had nothing to do with it. Unlikely, but there's nothing like a good conspiracy.

 

[Dire Bare]

IMHO, WotC has just dropped the ball big time with this. Here they have the PERFECT opportunity to branch out and show case another of their campaign worlds. The original ToEE was Greyhawk...why not keep it there? This makes no sense to me...it's like they're trying to make the FR the Core/Preferred World without actually having to come out and say it. Probably for fear of alienating all the other-setting fans. Their next "adventure path" could be set in Ebberon, or Dark Sun, or any of their other campaign worlds. If this is the beginning of a trend, I predict in 2 or 3 years we'll be right back to square one, with "edition warring" being transformed into "campaign warring". *fumes-at-the-thought*

No, WotC did not drop the ball. They made a choice. One you obviously don't care for, but that doesn't make it a bad decision. For me, I don't want to see yet another redo of Elemental Evil in Greyhawk. It's been done, several times. Elemental Evil is awesome and classic and cool, and if we are to revisit it, why not introduce it into the most popular setting WotC has ever produced? Doesn't take any Elemental Evil out of your Greyhawk, it's just now infecting other worlds too! Here's an idea, after the Elemental Evil D&D books are released, read some reviews, borrow a friends copy, page through it at the FLGS . . . and consider adapting it to your favorite campaign world (or not, if it ends up not floating your boat). No gain, no loss.

I don't run Forgotten Realms either, but have owned tons of FR sourcebooks and adventures as I find them SUPER EASY to convert to my own campaign. It's not even really all that much work, just grab the crunchy bits, change a few names, drop it into your own setting and voila!

I'm not interested in the Forgotten Realms. I don't want the Forgotten Realms. I don't really like the Forgotten Realms. So...I'm certainly a LOT less likely to buy stuff 'focused' on the Forgotten Realms. I'm also pretty damn sure I'm not alone in this...especially with all the influx of "other old grognards like me" taking up the banner of 5e as the current game of choice.

No offense, but who cares? You don't like the Forgotten Realms, got it. I don't care. I don't really like Greyhawk all that much, I'm guessing you don't care about that. Not trying to say your preferences aren't legit or valid, because they totally are. But why should any of us care if you (or anyone else) doesn't like an aspect of the D&D hobby? WotC is run by gamers who DO care what they're fans think and want, but they can only produce so much stuff and it makes PERFECT sense for them to focus on what MOST fans DO want. And that, my friend, is the Forgotten Realms. Accept it, move past it, keep on gaming!

I wish more folks in our hobby would focus on what they DO love in a positive fashion, and focus less on what they DON'T love (but others do) in a negative fashion. The anger and nerdrage never ceases to amaze and irritate me, I really don't quite grok it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Would these guys have happily went along with 4e if the OGL and PF didn't exist? That doesn't seem likely, and there still would have been a 3.x/4e split.

The existence of PF sure didn't help the situation, but it doesn't look like the cause.

I believe that there would not be the same type of divide... some people would have switched early (group A) some people would see group A having fun and switch (group B) others would stay with 3 a while, but get sick of no new upgrades and make there way over the next year or so to 4e (group C), and others would remain in 3.5(group D)... I gurantee you that more people would have been in BOTH B and C groups without pathfinder... (well more in D too but that isn't helping in my case).

If there was no pathfinder I honestly believe I would have had twice the number of players for my second 4e game.

The real Jerk behavior didn't start until Piazo put out the beta playtest... someone (I think it was Jim) found a bunch of posters on one of the boards that had this very huge hate of anything WotC, saying they were sell outs and destroying D&D, and that Piazo was the true spiritual holder of D&D... and some of that group took that to heart. I can't imagine a scenero where that split happens without pathfinder... around the same time Ross got into that argument at Gen COn, and he and Kurt were venemusly anti pathfinder... that lead to a clash...

 

[Agamon]

I believe that there would not be the same type of divide...

That's what I said. PF made it worse, but it wasn't the cause. If someone driving drunk on a icy road has an accident, you don't blame the icy road.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's what I said. PF made it worse, but it wasn't the cause. If someone driving drunk on a icy road has an accident, you don't blame the icy road.

why not?

If person A drives drunk and gets into an accident it is his fault, but the cause is the drunk driving
If Person B drives sober on an icy road and gets into an accifent it is his fault, but the cause is the icy road
If person C drives druck on an icy road and gets into an accident it is his fault... but the cause is BOTH icy road and drunk driving...

why would 1 contributing factor nullfy another factor?

lets use some made up numbers...

lets take the 2 scenros...

1) there is no pathfinder... 16% of 3.5 players are early adaptors, 22% more adapt next, 30% are late adaptors, and 12% more slowly drift in over the life of 4e... so an 80% cross over

2) there is a pathfinder... 16% still early adapt, but that 22% is now 14% to 4e and 8% to pathfinder, the late adaptor split almost right down the middle, 15% pathfinder 15% 4e, and that 12% is almost all pathfinder with only 4% comeing to 4e, and that 20% that stayed behind now spilts in half too..

in 1) we end with 80% cross overto 4e, 0 at pathfinder and 20% staying behinde, in 2) we end with 49% at 4e and 42% at pathfinder, and 10% staying behind for 3.5...

 

[Agamon]

why would 1 contributing factor nullfy another factor?

Nullify? Once again, for the third time, even, I'm not saying PF had no effect. I'm saying the problem exists without it. But I can imagine that if I need to respond again, I'll likely just need to reiterate that again, so I'll just bow out now.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Nullify? Once again, for the third time, even, I'm not saying PF had no effect. I'm saying the problem exists without it. But I can imagine that if I need to respond again, I'll likely just need to reiterate that again, so I'll just bow out now.

but you said "You don't blame the icy road" how is that not nullifying the icy road?

 

[Agamon]

but you said "You don't blame the icy road" how is that not nullifying the icy road?

How is this not arguing semantics? Good times.

 

[Kaychsea]

If there was no pathfinder I honestly believe I would have had twice the number of players for my second 4e game.

As a stance that completely fails to take into account the rise of OSR which was already evident, the return of an admittedly small number of people that had returned to a 1/2e style of play in reaction to a game that was bloating out of their comfort zone.
I'll be frank, I didn't like 4e as a roleplaying game. It was fun as a tactical boardgame but the rinse, wash repeat style it seemed to engender did not appeal to me in the long term. I bought the core bundle and the first two or three adventures. I really tried to find something in it that would hold me, but it wasn't there.
So I would have kept on with 3.5e with or without Pathfinder. And it is that rather than anything else that created the perfect storm that catapulted Paizo to success. They had a product that supported my current style of game with little effort to adjust. In fact the extra punch they gave characters from the off matched some ideas I had but did it more elegantly than I would have.
The edition war that followed had a bunch of people on the web claiming they were trying to put the fire out but seemed to be trying to do that with petrol. It got out of hand far more easily but that reflected the nature of the changes in the 'Net over the intervening years since 2e vs 3e. The degree of the change in the game didn't help.
I was a stick in the mud. But I had no reason to change. I also didn't play the blame game, but would give my opinion when asked and some people didn't like that I didn't like something they did.