4e/WotC: Pro- or Anti- why do you care?

[GregChristopher]

* To be honest, I enjoyed the days of the D20 Glut - it reminded me of the very early days, back when three guys who had access to a mimeograph machine could create and sell their own game. And I liked a lot of the amateur efforts that might otherwise never seen the light of day.

I don't know that this isnt true now as well. My game is a prime example. I wrote it, did the layout, using donated editing and artwork (over 150 pieces). Nearly 300 page book, sprung from nothing, free to distribute.

More amateur efforts are seeing daylight now than ever before, I think.

 

[Azgulor]

I think this is where people will disagree with you most. There are many threads full of worried 4E players in the 4E forum that hope the changes being made to the game with Essentials don't change the game too much.

Then you have people that were unhappy at the outset of 4E because there was no gnome, druid, barbarian, monk, fill in the blnak with your other favorite missing element, etc. Many of the elements are now in the game.

And 4E is the most malleable edition to date. New concepts fit in well because of the modular exception-based design. Things have changed since its inception and it seems valid to ask the question. If you don't like the question, don't read the thread. Easy enough.

Ok, since I don't play 4e if it's that susceptible/open to change I'll take your word for it. However, you appear to be talking about more than your typical rules expansions. For the changes to be so significant to bring back "those who left" at this point, you'd almost have to be talking about changes on a scale of a new edition.

I do seem to recall quite a few threads/posts stating that Essentials didn't invalidate the hardcovers, wasn't 4.5, not that significant, etc. etc. Granted, I only skimmed those threads so perhaps the changes are more sweeping than I thought.

If we are merely talking about expansion, then my question stands. The edition has grown but hasn't changed enough to warrant a new edition. If you saw features as flaws, chances are you still do. If DDI's subscription model didn't grab you, that hasn't changed. If you loved the OGL, WotC hasn't dropped the GSL and gone back to the OGL, etc.

As I stated earlier upthread, I understand wanting to influence the publisher - esp. when a new edition is on the horizon. It's the seemingly incessant need to "recruit to one's side". The RPG landscape is a much rosier picture than I'd have predicted 3 years ago, hence my assertion that the Edition Wars are over. Mindshare has been gained (by one publisher or another), games have been selected, etc.

Based on several other threads (here and elsewhere) I've been following of late, I'm thinking the real answer is people just like to argue on the Internet. What they're arguing about is a secondary consideration (and a distant one at that).

 

[thedungeondelver]

Can you count, suckers? I say the future of the hobby is ours...if you can count!

Look what we have here before us.
We've got AD&D players sitting next to the PATHFINDER fans.

We've got the original D&D crowd, right by the OSRIC folks.

Nobody is wasting nobody.

That...is a miracle.

And miracles is the way things ought to be.

You're posting right now with a bunch of delegates from a dozen games. And there's over a million more. Per WotC that's TWO MILLION hard-core members - counting affiliates, and ten thousand more not organised, but ready to game.

Gamers!

There ain't but a few dozen story gamers in the whole hobby!

Can you dig it?

Can you dig it?

CAN YOUUUUU DIIIIIIIIG IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!


Now, here's the sum total. One game could run this hobby. One game! Nothing would move without us allowing it to happen. We could tax the RPGA, White Wolf, because we got the game tables, suckers.

Can you dig it?

The problem in the past has been the man turning us against one another.
We've been unable to see the truth, because we've been fighting for ten
pages of one edition - our edition, our little houseruled edition.


That's crap, brothers. The game is ours by right because it's our game. All we have to do is keep up the general truce.

We take over one FLGS at a time. Secure our territory, secure our game,
because it's ALLLLLLLLL our turf.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I don't know that this isn't true now as well. My game is a prime example. I wrote it, did the layout, using donated editing and artwork (over 150 pieces). Nearly 300 page book, sprung from nothing, free to distribute.

More amateur efforts are seeing daylight now than ever before, I think.

Though, paradoxically, much of the amateur efforts of today exceed those of the professional publishers, back in the day.

I remember the days of light tables, razor blades, straight edges, beeswax, and Linotype machines. (And of looking for the fershluginner daisy wheels for the Linotype machine - which would always be hidden in some place like the inside of, or on top of, the electrical box....) Heck, I remember how big a difference the invention of the glue stick made!

Desktop publishing and layout programs ended those days forever, and the world is a better place for it*. Layout is much easier, and semi automated. Changing typeface is a matter of pulling down a menu, and images can be kept on a sideboard, waiting to be dropped into place - and all this costs less than might have been believed, once upon a time.

Sorry, I seem to be arguing your side of the discussion....

The Auld Grump

* Unless, of course, you are Palladium.... How long did they stick with the old razor blades?

 

[Truth Seeker]

After much finance support giving to TSR, WOTC and then Hasbro. For a total of 22 years+.

It was just time to move on. Even though I was still giving 4E a chance until I read my favorite creatures.

Dragons...

They got nerfed.

It was time to go...to find those fierce and feared beasts somewhere else.

Change can be beautiful when someone else does it proper.

Oh...caring for WOTC? Let me see if I can find that feat.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Ok, since I don't play 4e if it's that susceptible/open to change I'll take your word for it. However, you appear to be talking about more than your typical rules expansions. For the changes to be so significant to bring back "those who left" at this point, you'd almost have to be talking about changes on a scale of a new edition.

Depends on why they left.

I do seem to recall quite a few threads/posts stating that Essentials didn't invalidate the hardcovers, wasn't 4.5, not that significant, etc. etc. Granted, I only skimmed those threads so perhaps the changes are more sweeping than I thought.

I personally believe that the changes offer more options and do not constitute a 4.5 edition. But the idea of "." editions has all kind of changed with the fluidity of 4E. Nothing "old" is invalidated. The exception-based design has room for multiple playstyles and I think Essentials is the first step in exploring how to cater to each.

If we are merely talking about expansion, then my question stands. The edition has grown but hasn't changed enough to warrant a new edition. If you saw features as flaws, chances are you still do. If DDI's subscription model didn't grab you, that hasn't changed. If you loved the OGL, WotC hasn't dropped the GSL and gone back to the OGL, etc.

But not everyone who didn't switch has these deep issues with the game. A question posed in a thread does not have to appeal to everyone. I could care less about the two Forgotten Realms question threads in General, but I don't invalidate the question because of my personal ennui.

As I stated earlier upthread, I understand wanting to influence the publisher - esp. when a new edition is on the horizon. It's the seemingly incessant need to "recruit to one's side". The RPG landscape is a much rosier picture than I'd have predicted 3 years ago, hence my assertion that the Edition Wars are over. Mindshare has been gained (by one publisher or another), games have been selected, etc.

I don't see many people trying to recruit though. That isn't really what those questions are about.

Based on several other threads (here and elsewhere) I've been following of late, I'm thinking the real answer is people just like to argue on the Internet. What they're arguing about is a secondary consideration (and a distant one at that).

No argument here.

 

[Mistwell]

If someone starts a "Why pick PF?" thread, I'll make a case for PF. If someone asks "Would you try (try again) 4e?", no - that ship has sailed and I'm at peace with it.

I'm not interested in evangelizing Pathfinder or any other game to the 4e crowd.

However, some folks do like to do that sort of thing. When a company does it, they're shooting for new customers. However, as I stated earlier, for the average ENWorlder unless you're recruiting for your local game -- why bother

It's the seemingly incessant need to "recruit to one's side". The RPG landscape is a much rosier picture than I'd have predicted 3 years ago, hence my assertion that the Edition Wars are over. Mindshare has been gained (by one publisher or another), games have been selected, etc.

I am curious how you reconcile these statements.

If someone starts a topic "Why pick PF?", you say you will make the case for PF.

But then you say you're not interested in evangelizing Pathfinder, and that you don't see a reason to bother unless you are recruiting for your local game, and that games have already been selected.

So, I am guessing you see a difference between making a case for PF, and other people making a case for the game they prefer. I am not seeing a difference though, and I suspect whatever you're feeling that makes you want to post a case for PF, is the same others are feeling when they make a post in favor of the game they like.

 

[Dausuul]

So, I am guessing you see a difference between making a case for PF, and other people making a case for the game they prefer. I am not seeing a difference though, and I suspect whatever you're feeling that makes you want to post a case for PF, is the same others are feeling when they make a post in favor of the game they like.

Not to put words in Azgulor's mouth, but there's a difference between answering a question from someone who's curious about Game X, versus evangelizing people who've shown no interest in the subject.

 

[renau1g]

I care because I must win the internets and to prove Umbran wrong that you can't win a messageboard... I'm still working on that though.

 

[Mistwell]

Not to put words in Azgulor's mouth, but there's a difference between answering a question from someone who's curious about Game X, versus evangelizing people who've shown no interest in the subject.

It's not evangelizing people who've shown no interest in the subject.

They are reading the thread. They've shown the same interest as the people reading the PF thread.

Azgulor repeatedly said he saw no reason to recruit for the edition you like, other than recruiting for your local game. He said mindshare has been gained, and games have been selected already. But then he said he would praise PF in a certain context which had nothing to do with recruiting for his local game. And it was a context for recruiting players to play PF in general (unless he thinks every person reading those "Why PF" threads are new players who have never played any version of an RPG - the "Why PF" thread is a recruitment-type thread).

So I am saying whatever made him feel the desire to post in a thread like that praising PF, which is not a thread about recruiting for his own local game, it is a very similar feeling experienced by 4e fans posting about 4e in the threads that seem to confuse him.

If, as he says, he really doesn't understand what motivates people to post in the threads he's talking about, I am pointing him the way to understand what is motivating those people. It's the same kinds of motives he seems to have for sometimes posting praise of Pathfinder. If he can examine his own motives for making those pro-PF posts, I think he can learn to understand the motives of some 4e fans as well.