4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Imaro]

Sure, but Pathfinder's success is less from it's refinement of the game and more from it's support for the system with adventures and creative new additions. Pathfinder's corrections to 3.X's flaws are largely contained to a handful of books. Clearly Pathfinder produces a lot more than this and isn't hemorrhaging money so those other things must be doing quite well. The fact that any given Pathfinder adventure is fully compatible with 3.X and with a little tweaks, almost any other system lends credibility to the idea that the market is more interested in support than errata.

I think most gamers wanting support for their game is a given... That said I don't think the sales of the Pathfinder corebook support this theory of wanting support over errata (though I would call it a revised set of rules as opposed to errata) at all... If it's for the most part compatible (and fully compatible with the earlier releases) and people only want support... then why spend the extra money for a corebook with new/revised rules? Why is the corebook constantly in their top 3 for sales on their website? ... I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion stated above... unless it's just wild speculation on your part.

I wouldn't trade 4e for a more fixed 3.5.

And this seems to be the real jist of the previous hypothesis and conjecture you've been presenting. Everyone isn't you though, best believe there are people who prefer base 3.0 over 4e, base 3.5 over 4e, as well as people who prefer a revised 3.5 (Pathfinder) over 4e.

No of course not. But sometimes I swear in discussions even here you could give someone the perfect D&D, made exactly to their specifications, and they'd complain it wasn't the right shade of chartreuse.

I wonder how much of this view is based on the fact that you personally like 4e... apparently better than the edition you played previously, so for you 4e was a net gain... that didn't happen for everyone and I think inferring that people are whinning for the sake of whinning when it comes to 4e (as opposed to them genuinely not enjoying it) is in bad form.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think most gamers wanting support for their game is a given... That said I don't think the sales of the Pathfinder corebook support this theory of wanting support over errata (though I would call it a revised set of rules as opposed to errata) at all... If it's for the most part compatible (and fully compatible with the earlier releases) and people only want support... then why spend the extra money for a corebook with new/revised rules? Why is the corebook constantly in their top 3 for sales on their website? ... I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion stated above... unless it's just wild speculation on your part.

The same reason people buy an edited book over an unedited one. Why sift through all the crap that's a decade old when someone's already done it for you? A lot of people I meet these days are starting their 3.X experience with Pathfinder, I've known several people who won't even touch 3.X material save for a few supplemental things, and instead only go for Pathfinder. Look at it this way: when I go to buy a Toyota, do I want the one with acceleration and braking problems, or the one that doesn't have those problems?

And this seems to be the real jist of the previous hypothesis and conjecture you've been presenting. Everyone isn't you though, best believe there are people who prefer base 3.0 over 4e, base 3.5 over 4e, as well as people who prefer a revised 3.5 (Pathfinder) over 4e.

Sure there are. I'm not denying that. I hold to the premise that a complete rebuild of the system was necessary to break away from the flaws that were carrying through since D&D's inception. Now that WOTC did that, it can appear to veer back towards the older style, while still keeping the performance improvements from the rebuild. If it had never done the system overhaul, it would continue to be trapped by the flaws of the past.

I wonder how much of this view is based on the fact that you personally like 4e... apparently better than the edition you played previously, so for you 4e was a net gain... that didn't happen for everyone and I think inferring that people are whinning for the sake of whinning when it comes to 4e (as opposed to them genuinely not enjoying it) is in bad form.

I could reference a dozen points in this thread alone that are patently false claims about 4e. I like 4e and I have no issue defending what I like, and no, I won't tolerate misinformation(which I will attempt to remedy with correct information), I won't tolerate slander, and I certainly don't think it's "bad form" for call people when they do it. Judging by a number of posts in this thread, it certainly comes across as people whining either without taking the time to understand the system(Socrates said it: It's only bad to be ignorant of your ignorance.), or taking a singular bad experience or item and applying it to the whole.

I'm a gamer, I play a dozen different games at any given point and am looking around for more all the time. I'm not simply talking about people whining about 4e, I'm saying that gamers in general can be very whiny, and even when given exactly what they ask for will still be unhappy. Of course this is true of a lot ofhumanity too.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I certainly don't think it's "bad form" for call people when they do it.

Sure, but you're not an internet psychic, and can't divine the intent of people from message board posts.

If people are factually inaccurate, sure, correct away.

If you think you know the motives of that inaccuracy, you're wading into the waters of getting insulting and shutting down conversations.

Any conversation begins by assuming the other person is being honest with you about their experiences. If you can't believe that about a person, I personally find that it's usually better not to talk with them -- if you're right, there's no point in talking with them, and if you're wrong, then there's no need to be a jerk to someone who just isn't expressing themselves well.

 

[Imaro]

The same reason people buy an edited book over an unedited one. Why sift through all the crap that's a decade old when someone's already done it for you? A lot of people I meet these days are starting their 3.X experience with Pathfinder, I've known several people who won't even touch 3.X material save for a few supplemental things, and instead only go for Pathfinder. Look at it this way: when I go to buy a Toyota, do I want the one with acceleration and braking problems, or the one that doesn't have those problems?

First you're not addressing the contingent of PF players who had 3.5 books and still choose to purchase the Pathfinder corebook. That said, which one is it? Are the fans concerned with "errata" or are they only concerned with support... you seem to be contradicting exactly what you said in the post I was replying to before this one.

Sure there are. I'm not denying that. I hold to the premise that a complete rebuild of the system was necessary to break away from the flaws that were carrying through since D&D's inception. Now that WOTC did that, it can appear to veer back towards the older style, while still keeping the performance improvements from the rebuild. If it had never done the system overhaul, it would continue to be trapped by the flaws of the past.

Some people didn't have the problems or experience the "flaws" others did with 3.0, 3.5 and/or Pathfinder. That's the real problem, some people like the former rules better for their purposes, and WotC "ïmproving" them... well it didn't for those people. You do realize no one forces anyone to play a particular rpg, it's a choice and it's centered around a leisure activity for fun... that being said, for some people WotC's rebuild was less fun for them than the previous rules were. So I get that for YOU it was an improvement, but do you get that for many it wasn't an improvement over what they had already?

I could reference a dozen points in this thread alone that are patently false claims about 4e. I like 4e and I have no issue defending what I like, and no, I won't tolerate misinformation(which I will attempt to remedy with correct information), I won't tolerate slander, and I certainly don't think it's "bad form" for call people when they do it. Judging by a number of posts in this thread, it certainly comes across as people whining either without taking the time to understand the system(Socrates said it: It's only bad to be ignorant of your ignorance.), or taking a singular bad experience or item and applying it to the whole.

SO then why don't you reference and correct those dozen points? As far as claiming someone is whining just to whine, unless you're a mindreader... I don't think you can tell anyone what their motiation is for a post.

I'm a gamer, I play a dozen different games at any given point and am looking around for more all the time. I'm not simply talking about people whining about 4e, I'm saying that gamers in general can be very whiny, and even when given exactly what they ask for will still be unhappy. Of course this is true of a lot ofhumanity too.

Please give show me a case of a gamer who was given exactly what he or she asked for and then complained about said thing... I mean you've seen this so many times it should be pretty easy to give a singular example of it... right? Or are you just generalizing with a very broad brush?

 

[Bedrockgames]

First you're not addressing the contingent of PF players who had 3.5 books and still choose to purchase the Pathfinder corebook. That said, which one is it? Are the fans concerned with "errata" or are they only concerned with support... you seem to be contradicting exactly what you said in the post I was replying to before this one.




Some people didn't have the problems or experience the "flaws" others did with 3.0, 3.5 and/or Pathfinder. That's the real problem, some people like the former rules better for their purposes, and WotC "ïmproving" them... well it didn't for those people. You do realize no one forces anyone to play a particular rpg, it's a choice and it's centered around a leisure activity for fun... that being said, for some people WotC's rebuild was less fun for them than the previous rules were. So I get that for YOU it was an improvement, but do you get that for many it wasn't an improvement over what they had already?




SO then why don't you reference and correct those dozen points? As far as claiming someone is whining just to whine, unless you're a mindreader... I don't think you can tell anyone what their motiation is for a post.



Please give show me a case of a gamer who was given exactly what he or she asked for and then complained about said thing... I mean you've seen this so many times it should be pretty easy to give a singular example of it... right? Or are you just generalizing with a very broad brush?

Really to me, it just sounds like some people have a hard time accepting not everyone loves 4E. I know I have reached the point where I pretty much don't post my opinions on the edition any more because as soon as you do there is a wall of posters there to tell you all your experiences and subjective opinions about the editoin are wrong. What ismore, you are told deep down you would really love it, but you are just affraid of change and finding things not to like (or some variation on that theme). Not being taken at your word on these points is quite frustrating. I mean if a friend takes me to his favorite breakfast joint to try the pancakes and I say they are too sweet for me, it stops there. It doesn't become a day long debate about the nature of sweetness or my possible fear of new eating establishments. It doesn't become a matter of him wearing me down rhetorically until i say i liked the pancakes just so he'll stop. We let it go. Just like I let it go if one of my players feels characters in Savage Worlds are too similar (I happen to think that isn't the case, but I can at least see why some folks might disagree) or 2E is too clunky.

 

[Sunseeker]

First you're not addressing the contingent of PF players who had 3.5 books and still choose to purchase the Pathfinder corebook. That said, which one is it? Are the fans concerned with "errata" or are they only concerned with support... you seem to be contradicting exactly what you said in the post I was replying to before this one.

Sales of core books are supported by a desire for a more refined product. But the sales of the core books alone do not sustain the Pathfinder franchise. I gave you an apparently different answer because you asked an apparently different question. The original claim was that Pathfinder was selling quite well. The secondary claim was that Core books for Pathfinder show high sales. The causes of these can easily stem from two different reasons. Considering that that non-core splat and adventure books make up a significantly large sum of Pathfinder products than the Core books do, it's reasonable to surmise that there's a significant demand for them beyond simply a big book of rules corrections(which is what I largely find Pathfinder's Core books to be).

Some people didn't have the problems or experience the "flaws" others did with 3.0, 3.5 and/or Pathfinder. That's the real problem, some people like the former rules better for their purposes, and WotC "ïmproving" them... well it didn't for those people. You do realize no one forces anyone to play a particular rpg, it's a choice and it's centered around a leisure activity for fun... that being said, for some people WotC's rebuild was less fun for them than the previous rules were. So I get that for YOU it was an improvement, but do you get that for many it wasn't an improvement over what they had already?

Sure, in which case I fully anticipate WOTC death squads to break down their doors and burn their old books.

It is a leisure activity though some people take it far too seriously. Few products last forever(even Twinkies die apparently!) so it's fairly unreasonable to expect WOTC to make one edition of D&D and then stop. The fact that you don't like the new edition means nothing. You've still got the edition you enjoy, so there should be absolutely no harm in there being a new one. If you do enjoy it, great, now there are two editions you enjoy, or more!

I'm not saying Wizards rebuilt the system with the intent of greater enjoyment either. I'm suggesting Wizards rebuilt the system out of sheer necessity. I'm suggesting that there was so much clutter and gunk piling up and spilling over from edition to edition that the outlook of continuing that trend was dire, the game would eventually become so convoluted as to be worthless and irreparable. So Wizards built a new system with the goal not of making a singular, superior game, but of clearing the waters for the future of the game.

SO then why don't you reference and correct those dozen points? As far as claiming someone is whining just to whine, unless you're a mindreader... I don't think you can tell anyone what their motiation is for a post.

I did. Browse through this thread. There's 20 pages here and I'm not really interested in re-skimming it and re-quoting all my rebukes.

Please give show me a case of a gamer who was given exactly what he or she asked for and then complained about said thing... I mean you've seen this so many times it should be pretty easy to give a singular example of it... right? Or are you just generalizing with a very broad brush?

I'm generalizing gamers based on trends and experiences.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION], great post at #215, but can't XP.

The thing i find fuinny is that 4e isn't pure in a gamist, narrativist or simulationist sense either... I mean if you want any of these things there are better games out there for it than 4e, but it doesn't stop many of the fans of 4e from claiming that 4e is (for the most part) of a narrativist bent and preferring it to games that do narrativist play much better.

Many of those 4e fans, though, demonstrate a clear knowledge of the other games around (be that Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, FATE, etc) and how 4e does or doesn't resemble them. I don't recall ever seeing a post that advocates 4e for narrativist play, and the player has never even heard of non-traditional games.

What I tend to find odd is people who advocate 3E for sim play and then it turns out they've never even looked at RQ, RM, C&S, or similar late-70s/80s vintage sim fantasy system.

I mean we've got a multi-page thread on "pemertonian scene-framing" that only a few posters are actually posting and discussing in because it's like having to read a text book to change one's style in order to accomodate a game that before this edition ran fine under the style you enjoyed.

<snip>

I've honestly come around to realizing that 4e does actually support a type of game I enjoy running (protagonist enabled, four-colored & high-action adventure fanatsy), but it's not a type I run all the time and it's not even my favorite type of fantasy to run.

Who needs to read a textbook to play "Pemertonian" 4e? I didn't, I just ran the game like I'd been running my RM game but adding in the DMG advice on the tactical/mechanical side of encounter building, and taking advantage of p 42 for mechanical improvisation.

Since 2009 I've been posting on this forum explaining how I play 4e, how it clearly lacks the sim trappings of 3E but supports a different playstyle pretty well, etc. While some posters seemed to disagree, arguing that rather than playing 4e as written I was doing some sort of weird Forge drifting of it, some others have obviously found what I posted helpful.

I think inferring that people are whinning for the sake of whinning when it comes to 4e (as opposed to them genuinely not enjoying it) is in bad form.

I've never said everyone should like 4e. What I've objected to over the past 4 or so years is being told, repeatedly and often, that because I'm playing 4e my game must be a serious of vacuous tactical skirmishes linked by meaningless freeform roleplay.

There seems to be a bit less of this these days, though, as more people recognise that - whether or not they personally are interested in it - there's a type of heroic fantasy RPGing for which 4e offers genuinely solid support.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Before I even comment on this...what exacty does the game encourage?

The most seriously distinguishing feature of pre-4e D&D is the magic system. Which encourages massive preparation and planning and in character optimisation as you have far more ability and requirement to plan than in just about any other RPG I can think of (especially in 3.X). However actually using it is the third rail of D&D. The second absolutely distinguishing feature is the rate of power growth. The third is hit points with no penalty for being hurt which encourages recklessness. Especially 3.X in which you can heal back up to full after every fight once you've bought a wand or two unless you're being kept really treasure poor.

Really? What are some of those "valid" reasons?

You just named some. "Don't like action fantasy. Don't want high detail or time consuming combat. Like theatre of the mind. Want to play PCs who aren't adventurers. Want to play weedy PCs or in a crapsack world."

I don't think WoTC understood 4e. Actually I don't think D&D designers have understood their game since Gygax & Arneson, who did seem to have an intuitive understanding of what they were doing. 2e has Paladins & Princesses fluff on an unsuitable OD&D Dungeoncrawler base. 3e when you dig into it is a weird Tweet/Cook/Williams mash-up of Ars Magica caster supremacy*, crunch-for-crunch's sake, and hodge podge of bits of simulation on the continuing OD&D legacy base. 4e is a radically different design with minimal legacy elements - and if they knew that, they were scared to say so.

There are quite a few legacy elements there - 4e is far more like 3e than any othe of the couple of dozen games on my bookshelf with the arguable exception of the explicitely 4e based Gamma World; the only other game that comes close is WFRP 3e. And a couple of the legacy elements are the cause of some of the presentation problems 4e has (renaming hit points and healing surges to stun and wounds, and the extended rest = 8 hours spring to mind).

Hell, 4e is far, far more like 3e than my three Cortex Plus games (Leverage, Smallville and Marvel Heroic Roleplaying) are like each other or my two Apocalypse World Engine games are (Monsterhearts and Dungeon World) are like each other.

Now which of the games on my bookshelf 3e is most like is an interesting question. With AD&D, 4e, and WFRP1/2e all having fairly good claims. And I think I'd give it to WFRP 1e.

Oh, indeed. Pathfinder wouldn't be outselling it though.

Pathfinder has only outsold 4e since they gave up producing books for it. Stupid move on WotC's part - getting the players out of the habit of buying books.

 

[Fox Lee]

As for Eladrin, when's the last time there wasn't 3700 different variety of elf-types? Sun/Moon, Wild/Wood, Sea, Drow, High, Chartreuse, Valley, Preppy, Melmack, Will Ferrell and every other sub-shoot have been cluttering up the racial tables for as long as AD&D has had supplements.

This indeed. Compared to the old "subraces" list, elf and eladrin seem positively austere - and besides, I have always rather thought that "snotty magic socialite" and "unwashed foresty hippie" were completely at odds with each other, so I was quite pleased to see then become definitively separate races. Later in 4e, I was rather annoyed to see them try to shoehorn in the elf subraces in name only - I had hoped we would never hear of them again.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Pathfinder has only outsold 4e since they gave up producing books for it. Stupid move on WotC's part - getting the players out of the habit of buying books.

Isn't that sort of like saying "You can't fire me. I quit!"? They stopped producing books for a reason.

The broader point, though, is that if WotC had stuck with the core elements of the game and with the OGL, there wouldn't be a large enough market for other games for any of this to have happened.