Are people still mad about . . .

[Dannager]

Unfun and sucked were words I recall hearing. If I cared enough to look I would find a video am sure it still floats about somewhere. But the comment "was x rules sucked and if you use them your game is not as fun as it could be" Profession skills was one of em, listed IIRC

I don't recall this, and I certainly don't recall being told my game sucked. I recall them explaining some of the changes they decided to make as ways of dealing with mechanics of the previous edition they thought were not fun, or not as fun as they could be, but at no point did they tell you your game sucked.

Really, what do you expect? They're making a new game! They have to explain why they made the decisions they made, or people would be up in arms about them not giving an explanation. "We decided that the Profession rules weren't good enough, so we removed them," is a perfectly reasonable explanation, and it's the sort of explanation they gave.

And, of course, all this ignores the fact that there were tons of people playing 3.X who at no point felt like they were being told their game sucked. They were being told their game had flaws, but they knew that already. This wasn't news. This was just evidence that the developers had been paying attention to what areas of the game needed the most work.

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Unless there are some official statements floating around out there that use phrases like "3.5 sucked", you are misstating what the developers said during the lead-in to 4e. I'm sorry you feel that their statements were offensive. If you want to share that sentiment with others, share it accurately. Why should any company make an effort to appease a segment of the fanbase that reacts like this?

 

[Dannager]

You know, I'm not feeling particularly marginalized at the moment. Pathfinder is making me feel very, very included.

I meant marginalized by WotC. And yes, I know that Paizo is seen as a sort of safe haven for those disenfranchised customers. I worry about what that might do to Paizo down the line, though, when they make the inevitable mistake or two. A lot of their new customers don't strike me as the particularly forgiving type.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Indeed. 3.5 was "my game" at the time as well, in that it was the game I was playing, and the only version of D&D I had played in several years. I listened to all the 4E marketing and was never once told my game sucks.

That tells me it's about interpretation. We all hear the same words and watch the same videos. Some people interpret it as "your game sucks." I didn't see it.

I dont think that I literally heard that "3.5 sucked". But it was the tone at the time that rubbed me the wrong way coming from some of the developers and the marketing. The idea that the game that I liked and played was irrevocably broken and the I would play the new one because it was D&D, really, REALLY rubbed me the wrong way. And even then I bought the gift set and ran a few games to give it a fair shot. Still, it was things like the video I posted earlier that kind of annoyed the crap out of me.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I meant marginalized by WotC. And yes, I know that Paizo is seen as a sort of safe haven for those disenfranchised customers. I worry about what that might do to Paizo down the line, though, when they make the inevitable mistake or two. A lot of their new customers don't strike me as the particularly forgiving type.

Alot? You mean like the completely rational and non-rabid 4E people here and on the wizards forum?

This is the second time i've heard you trumpet that Paizo's fans might be fair weather. They are no more or less loyal than WOTC's fan base. We get it, you love 4E. You love it enough hang around on the Paizo boards just waiting for the slightest slight to be spoken against 4E and / or WOTC so that you can pounce in and tell everyone how wrong they are. We get it Scott.

I like Pathfinder alot. And if 4E were a slightly different game i'd like it alot too.

 

[Mark Chance]

The idea that the game that I liked and played was irrevocably broken and the I would play the new one because it was D&D, really, REALLY rubbed me the wrong way.

QFT.

WotC didn't listen to player feedback about problem areas for 3.5 and then set out to fix those problem areas. If they had, 4E would be compatible with 3.5. Rather, they listened to player feedback, and then released a new game system that obsoleted the previous system.

Maybe 4E is a great game system. I neither know nor do I care to know. But 4E wasn't designed to fix the "areas of the game needed the most work" unless one is of the opinion that the entire 3.5 engine needed to be scrapped.

 

[BryonD]

I think that if they started talking about 5E and said something like:
"4E was a good game, but we really didn't appreciate many player's desire for simulation and the value of not having to make certain a brand new DM can handle everything in the game" or a whole "proud nails" article on things being too gamist, or so on, then I would not find any of that offensive. And yet a lot of current 4E fans would.

Clearly there is a division between people who don't like 4E and found statements offensive and those who did like 4E and can't see it. I do not claim this is everyone. I don't much care for 4E, but I don't think the term offensive applies. To me it is more just clear evidence of a stark divergence in game philosophy.

But, still the don't like and offended vs. like and not offended division holds rather true. And some on the like side are claiming that the offense is just sour grapes from people that don't like the game. In effect they are saying that the dislike for the game is a cause and taken offense is a resultant effect.

I think it is more reasonable to say that these are both effects of the same cause. If someone liked the philosophy changes of 4E, then they very likely agreed with the comments and thus couldn't imagine finding offense. Whereas someone whose game preferences run contrary to the 4E changes is going to find that critical comments against the alternative that they did like are going to irritate them.

It is kinda like accusing someone of not liking a politician's positions because they are just upset because the guy they voted for lost. The fact of the matter is going to be that they probably voted for the other guy because they didn't like this guy's position in the first place. Unhappiness with the election outcome and dislike of policies are not cause and effect, but instead they go hand in hand.


Mearls did say on these boards that players who really like world building would not find 4E to be their thing. That isn't remotely offensive. But I do take it as validation that 4E was never designed to appeal to my tastes in gaming in the first place.

 

[Dannager]

Alot? You mean like the completely rational and non-rabid 4E people here and on the wizards forum?

This is the second time i've heard you trumpet that Paizo's fans might be fair weather. They are no more or less loyal than WOTC's fan base. We get it, you love 4E. You love it enough hang around on the Paizo boards just waiting for the slightest slight to be spoken against 4E and / or WOTC so that you can pounce in and tell everyone how wrong they are. We get it Scott.

I like Pathfinder alot. And if 4E were a slightly different game i'd like it alot too.

Actually, I hang around Paizo's board primarily for a completely different reason. It just happens to be a nice little side benefit that I can step in as the (normally missing) other side of arguments against WotC and 4e there.

Most telling, however, is that on those boards it's not the ones who make (often outlandish) attacks on WotC and 4e that are chastised by the community. It's the handful of us (loyal enough fans to continue buying Paizo products even after they decided not to support our edition of choice!) who speak up in another company's defense that receive the dogpile.

But ooooh, personal, cross-board stalking attacks! Excellent!

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Ooooh, personal, cross-board stalking attacks! Excellent!

Scott I've been both here and at Paizo long before you started posting under your current aliases. So no I'm not stalking you, you just happen to post in two places I frequent with the same kind of behavior in both places.

Seriously, dont flatter yourself. You're special, but not THAT special.

 

[Xyxox]

I'll tell you what I'm still mad about...

Snit's Revenge.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Most telling, however, is that on those boards it's not the ones who make (often outlandish) attacks on WotC and 4e that are chastised by the community. It's the handful of us (loyal enough fans to continue buying Paizo products even after they decided not to support our edition of choice!) who speak up in another company's defense that receive the dogpile.

Now that I think about it that's not what I've seen at Paizo. I've seen Erik or James step in and tell EVERYONE in the thread to CHILL OUT. I've NEVER seen them step in and jump on the 4E fans only. There's enough system douchebaggery to go around both there and here.

Still if you really feel that way then it's kinda like the reverse of ENworld!
You should feel right at home here then.