4E is unacceptable

[Ginnel]

If you don't have fun then your DM probably runs the NPCs wrong. IMC, the NPCs don't hog the spotlight, or outshine anyone, they are here to provide more roleplay opportunities, and provide some services (healing, f.e.) no one of the players wants to cover. The NPCs fade into the background when the PCs act. I don't roll their actions in combat unless it's a special situation - like when a PC orders them to do something.

The "You need tutoring but I won't let you" problem also points to your DM missing the mark on offering a fun gaming experience for his group.

Hmm I get the point and the DM (i'm in the same game) doesn't generally run them the players do they're mostly like cohorts without the leadership feat though there are some actual NPC's too.

It just seems a bit dull to have NPC in my pocket, one who fades into the background and pops up when a lock needs picking/a character needs healing (if you really need to do this than have an intelligent lock pick or a wand of healing), if an adventure needs a particular skill to progress/get the most out of it, I feel you need to provide other options for your PC's not the ones the adventure expects you to have.

The group which was being mentioned has 6 PC's in it which I think is more than enough to roleplay with, currently the NPC's get voiced by one of the players every now and then with a witty comment but thats it.

 

[Fenes]

Hmm I get the point and the DM (i'm in the same game) doesn't generally run them the players do they're mostly like cohorts without the leadership feat though there are some actual NPC's too.

It just seems a bit dull to have NPC in my pocket, one who fades into the background and pops up when a lock needs picking/a character needs healing (if you really need to do this than have an intelligent lock pick or a wand of healing), if an adventure needs a particular skill to progress/get the most out of it, I feel you need to provide other options for your PC's not the ones the adventure expects you to have.

The group which was being mentioned has 6 PC's in it which I think is more than enough to roleplay with, currently the NPC's get voiced by one of the players every now and then with a witty comment but thats it.

Oh, I'd never let the players run the NPCs, that's my Job. Just because they help the PCs doesn't mean they become items on the PCs' sheets. Roleplaying with them is a big part of the fun for me when I DM too. It's just that when the PCs are in the spotlight, or in combat, I let the NPCs fade to the background.

 

[Shabe]

If you don't have fun then your DM probably runs the NPCs wrong. IMC, the NPCs don't hog the spotlight, or outshine anyone, they are here to provide more roleplay opportunities, and provide some services (healing, f.e.) no one of the players wants to cover. The NPCs fade into the background when the PCs act. I don't roll their actions in combat unless it's a special situation - like when a PC orders them to do something.

The "You need tutoring but I won't let you" problem also points to your DM missing the mark on offering a fun gaming experience for his group.

Tell me about it, but i think its maybe a little bit off topic.

 

[Ginnel]

Oh, I'd never let the players run the NPCs, that's my Job. Just because they help the PCs doesn't mean they become items on the PCs' sheets. Roleplaying with them is a big part of the fun for me when I DM too. It's just that when the PCs are in the spotlight, or in combat, I let the NPCs fade to the background.

Yeah when I DM'd I used to love playing the Wizard's familiar and the cohorts from the leadership feat, kept me entertained during the PC's oh so common faf times, also allowed me to insert subtle or not so subtle hints/suggestions from those characters points of view if the PC's were stuck.

 

[Grimstaff]

1. The RPG market is just too small to support two versions of D&D. One version struggles enough as it is. D&D has had a rocky marketing history. DO you really think you can split it in two and get two viable markets? Be realistic and look at marketing history!

2. History also shows that two RPG versions of the same genre eventually succumb to one or the other (sure some may linger, but are they really viable?). Pathfinder already has a large fanbase that grows daily, and it comes from the CORE of an established system. D&D 4e is edging themselves to the fringe, and out of existence.

3. HASBRO wants D&D to make money. If a goodly percentage of previous gamers do NOT go with the new product, don’t you think the axe is in its future? Again, be realistic, HASBRO views D&D as a minor product to begin with (take a look at there board meeting transcripts and you can see whats important to them). DO you HONESTLY think if Pathfinder does well that D&D won’t be axed? It might be axed regardless, but Pathfinder sure is not helping.

This is very...cute.

All edition wars aside, you'd be hard pressed to find even a shred of evidence that Pathfinder has had even 10% of the sales 4E has, and 4E's only been out a couple of months now.

Pathfinder is a fantastic product, and I've always been one to espouse quality over quantity. I'm not so sure PF would be half as cool a product if was not so niche (keeping it small means they only have to answer to themselves and their creative muses).

1. There is only 1 version of D&D. As part of an internet community we have a much more varied plate of games to choose from, but regardless of what we may individually consider to be "D&D", there is only one game sitting on shelves at the local bookstore with that title, and its going to far outsell anything else. There is no "splitting in two".

2. If by "fringe" you mean, "the zone of insane profitablility and sales".

3. Pathfinder could do 5 times as good as it is already, and still have no impact on WotC whatsoever.

Seriously, 4E doesn't have to crash and burn (and won't) for folks to enjoy PF, in fact since 4E may bring more players to the hobby in general, it may ultimately bring more players to PF.

 

[Wicht]

1. There is only 1 version of D&D. As part of an internet community we have a much more varied plate of games to choose from, but regardless of what we may individually consider to be "D&D", there is only one game sitting on shelves at the local bookstore with that title, and its going to far outsell anything else. There is no "splitting in two".

Well actually,...

The Books-a-Million above Wheeling WV where I sometimes shop has seemed to increased their inventory of 3.5 material lately and, since the advent of 4e, it has also started stocking Paizo products. They sell 4e of course but if you walk through the gaming section, the 3e products still outnumber the 4e.

I assume that will change in time but at the moment there are two games sitting on the shelves of my local bookstores with the name Dungeons and Dragons on it.

 

[The Little Raven]

They sell 4e of course but if you walk through the gaming section, the 3e products still outnumber the 4e.

With 8 years of releases, as compared to 2 months, I'd hope that 3e products outnumber 4e products.

However, the fact that a longer life span has given more products to 3e doesn't say anything at all about the viability and life span of 4e.

 

[Wicht]

With 8 years of releases, as compared to 2 months, I'd hope that 3e products outnumber 4e products.

However, the fact that a longer life span has given more products to 3e doesn't say anything at all about the viability and life span of 4e.

Well, yeah... but I think I was just pointing out the reality that there are currently two versions of Dungeons and Dragons for sale, not one. I don't remember mentioning the life-span of anything.