Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Carlsen" data-source="post: 6167745" data-attributes="member: 61749">There's an assumption to this statement that that 4E and Pathfinder well suit the desires of their players today. I tend to think that each is more the path of least resistance for most players.I posit that, at the end of Third Edition, players were mostly ready for a new edition. One that cleaned up the rules, addressed some of the issues, and made the game easier to play. But what we got were three new games, 4E, which dramatically altered the shape of the game. Pathfinder, which aimed to revise while remaining compatible, and the Old School Renaissance, which simply doesn't have the brand awareness. While Pathfinder was the closest to that desire, I don't think any of them really fit the bill. 4E was too different, and Pathfinder was too similar.I believe there are a lot of these people playing both 4E and Pathfinder. Probably even a majority.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Carlsen, post: 6167745, member: 61749"] There's an assumption to this statement that that 4E and Pathfinder well suit the desires of their players today. I tend to think that each is more the path of least resistance for most players. I posit that, at the end of Third Edition, players were mostly ready for a new edition. One that cleaned up the rules, addressed some of the issues, and made the game easier to play. But what we got were three new games, 4E, which dramatically altered the shape of the game. Pathfinder, which aimed to revise while remaining compatible, and the Old School Renaissance, which simply doesn't have the brand awareness. While Pathfinder was the closest to that desire, I don't think any of them really fit the bill. 4E was too different, and Pathfinder was too similar. I believe there are a lot of these people playing both 4E and Pathfinder. Probably even a majority. [/QUOTE]

Verification