D&D 5E cancelled 5e announcement at Gencon??? Anyone know anything about this?

[catastrophic]

Unless you think that *every* system must support *every* playstyle (and thus be all things to all people), this is simply not true. It is like saying a wrench isn't working correctly if it hammers nails poorly.

Every system has ways in which it works well, and ways it works not-well.

That's assuming that a system works well to do the things it claims to do. People can argue that a system better services their play-style, but that is not a claim that should be immune to interrogation.

For instance, there are games out there where some pcs are stronger and more magical than others- like the Buffy RPG, which has rules for powerful, supernatual types, as well as less formidable 'scoobie' types. In this system, a 'plot point' resource is used to give some parity and ways for the 'weaker' pcs to serve key roles in the plot and scenes, including combat scenes.

On the other hand, the claim that 3.x wizards and fighters interact in a similar, well designed, deliberate ways, wether with the goal of partiy, or some other goal, is dubious at best. People make that argument all the time, but we're under no obligation to accept that claim at face value, especially when the logic tends to be so convoluted and I would say, cointrived.

There's only so many anti-magic zones, low ceilings, and sleepless nights you can inflict on a party before it becomes clear that 3.x isn't designed a certain way- it's just not well designed.

There's only so many scenarios we can lay out for how utterly worthless a fighter is psat about level 6, before it becomes clear that 3.x isn't servicing some low-medievil 'simulationist' play-style- it's just broken.

Once again...
when criticism is aimed at something you don't like, it is not automatic jerk behaviour.

You can dismiss my opinions as much as you like, but the trend poor behaviour in question is quite clear and apparent. Yes, there are scapegoats for it, like the bytopia outrage we discussed earlier, but they are, clearly scapegoats. Certinly, people defending 4e have been part of these arguments, but the character and persistance of the situation are clear.

Nobody's suggesting they didn't make mistakes, but watever WOTC did or did not do wrong, pales in signifigance to the wrath that was caused, not because they made a bad game, or acted poorly, but because they changed something that people didn't want changed, and those people acted very poorly in response.

You might argue that they should have been aware of that, should have avoided innovation and solid, ground-up design goals- but that's not a mindset anyone should be encouraging, least of all in such a small industry.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Pray tell what are those deeper issues?

Could it be that a group of developers that some people used to trust made a game they USED to like, and transformed it into a game they don't want to play? Is that really unwarranted?

It borders on hillarious that those that are not impacted by a change can say "no big deal!" "Just deal with it!" You still have your books! etc.

Bottom line is it is great they catered to your play style. They did however in several instances say they were designing away from the older play styles. They in fact DID design away from older play styles.

Simply by not including areas for Fluff because there is no so called playability is designing away from play styles. Saying that a plane of vacuum needs to be removed, because it is just fluff is designing away from a paly style.

There are no "issues" underlying anything as if someones inner child was injured. The only issue is that ONE gaming company proved they are not needed for a formerly loyal group of fans.

They made D&D into something you don't like, fair enough, but throwing a hissy fit about it that has lasted 4 years isn't something you can blame on them. A reasonable person would have accepted things at some point and moved on. You asked what deeper issues, and the answer is blaming WotC developers for your own personal issues with 4E in an attempt to justify an out of proportion response.

This is a question relayed in all honesty...

How is the atmosphere of a 4e player "poisoned"? I play a lot of games in a lot of places. I have played Pathfinder games Next to (you will never beleive this...) a table where the players are playing 4e. Neither group ribs the other, or disrupts the others game, except for an occasional improv acting session that is overly loud.

The only criticism comes when Player from group A, asks Player from Group B "Why don't you play our game this week," and either person will relay why they do not want to without VITRIOL.

Grognards are not destroying the fabric of the 4e gamingverse. I go to game cons, and I find individuals from any camp acting like arses. But there is not this hostile us vs. them mentality that people would have you beleive. I play PATHFINDER with 4e players. I consider them friends! Imagine that!

I am allowed to criticise WOTC for creating 4e in an image I do not like. There is nothing wrong with criticising them again, and again, and again. MAYBE (though doubtfully) they will change it into something I like again. That is the purpose of complaint and criticism. I am very happy the 4e they made caters to YOUR playstyle. That will not stop me from complaining about it or criticising 4e in threads like these.

What I will not do is go to YOUR gaming table and tell you how much WOTC screwed the pooch, or go to your gaming store or gaming room and point out the flaws in 4e. This just does not happen.

The ONLY hostility I ever encounter in reagards to 4e is ONLINE. It seems in person I can have conversations with players of other games without anyone getting offended.

I fail to see how this group of other than 4e players has poisoned the gaming atmosphere.

Perhaps that perception is as unreasonable, as a gamer like myself thinking the developers were calling MY playstyle wrong...

You said it, the online atmosphere is poisoned.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Saying that you have to play the game in a specific way in order to avoid problems with a system is not a system that is working correctly. Also, stop using the argument that its subjective. You basically are invoking one of the more common logical fallacies.

It is a question of likes and dislikes - by its very nature it is subjective. To claim other wise is silly. Like trying to claim that chocolate icecream is better than strawberry - not everyone likes chocolate, not everyone likes strawberries, and some like both. So, no, there is no logical fallacy possible in this instance, except in trying to argue that a subjective like or dislike is somehow objective.

And I use timelines in every game, not just PF, including games that recharge magic by the scene or do not use magic at all. It is how I have run games since 1981 and went to a seminar on game mastering and world creation by the late Wm. John Wheeler.

The Auld Grump

 

[Mournblade94]

You can dismiss my opinions as much as you like, but the trend poor behaviour in question is quite clear and apparent. Yes, there are scapegoats for it, like the bytopia outrage we discussed earlier, but they are, clearly scapegoats. Certinly, people defending 4e have been part of these arguments, but the character and persistance of the situation are clear.

Nobody's suggesting they didn't make mistakes, but watever WOTC did or did not do wrong, pales in signifigance to the wrath that was caused, not because they made a bad game, or acted poorly, but because they changed something that people didn't want changed, and those people acted very poorly in response.

You might argue that they should have been aware of that, should have avoided innovation and solid, ground-up design goals- but that's not a mindset anyone should be encouraging, least of all in such a small industry.

Precisely. When a change happens that people do not like, they will respond. If WOTC's sales were hurt by that they will learn better next time.

I will agree that some outrage to developers comments could be construed as exagerrated, but that was jsut a simple part of the puzzle. Players had, and have a right to complain.

Whether or not WOTC's sales are hurt by this is of no concern to me as I no longer play their game.

Developers made a change to a game and the response was completely appropriate because it was not out of line in any way shape or form. Grognards and 4eavengers are equally at blame for edition wars.

However 'grognards' have the illusion of having started it as they were the shall we say... injured party.

No the response was exactly as WOTC earned.

My criticism was always aimed at WOTC and never at the players of 4e.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

One thing that I do not understand is that the edition wars seem to have flared up again after Pathfinder matched or exceeded 4e sales.

For me Pathfinder doing well was something that helped cool my temper, but for others it seems to have added fuel to the fire.

Some 4e Avengers seem to feel that Pathfinder has stolen sales from 4e, rather than WotC gleefully disenfranchising a large portion of their player base, and being surprised when those disenfranchised went elsewhere. (Look around these very forums - some were quite vocal about calling Paizo Plagiarists, Marketers, etc..)

It is also possible that some Pathfinder fans have been overly celebratory of Pathfinder's success at WotC's expense. 'We R In UR Game Stealin' All UR Players! Ha Ha!' (I have not noticed it, but it would not surprise me, though I do hope that there is no LOL Cat for it.)

The Auld Grump - All Your Sale Are Belong To Us!

 

[thecasualoblivion]

One thing that I do not understand is that the edition wars seem to have flared up again after Pathfinder matched or exceeded 4e sales.

Given ICv2's questionable methodology, I don't consider Pathfinder matching or exceeding 4E sales a given.

Some 4e Avengers seem to feel that Pathfinder has stolen sales from 4e, rather than WotC gleefully disenfranchising a large portion of their player base, and being surprised when those disenfranchised went elsewhere. (Look around these very forums - some were quite vocal about calling Paizo Plagiarists, Marketers, etc..)

I don't think Pathfinder has stolen sales from 4E. Most of the people who are buying Pathfinder are people who already rejected 4E or never would have been interested. I don't see Pathfinder doing 4E a disservice, I see Pathfinder doing 3E and all the good things WotC did with it a disservice. I'm not a believer in the OGL, and find it sad that WotC gave it away for free and now another company is cashing in on disgruntled fans of the previous edition.

It is also possible that some Pathfinder fans have been overly celebratory of Pathfinder's success at WotC's expense. 'We R In UR Game Stealin' All UR Players! Ha Ha!' (I have not noticed it, but it would not surprise me, though I do hope that there is no LOL Cat for it.)

"It is also possible..." is the mother of all understatements. Even Paizo staff like Lisa Stevens are doing it.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Given ICv2's questionable methodology, I don't consider Pathfinder matching or exceeding 4E sales a given.

From what I have seen locally, I think that ICv2 is pretty accurate in this case. It may well be that there are more 4e players, but they are not buying as much, or are relying on the DDi.

I don't think Pathfinder has stolen sales from 4E. Most of the people who are buying Pathfinder are people who already rejected 4E or never would have been interested. I don't see Pathfinder doing 4E a disservice, I see Pathfinder doing 3E and all the good things WotC did with it a disservice. I'm not a believer in the OGL, and find it sad that WotC gave it away for free and now another company is cashing in on disgruntled fans of the previous edition.

Then that complaint is not aimed at you, I certainly don't remember you whinging that Pathfinder's success was because people fear change, or that Paizo hasn't written any new content, so you are safe from my mighty, mighty ire.

Had WotC not given the OGL away free then 3.X would not have been the success that it was. 3PP would not have jumped on board. Folks may complain about the D20 glut, but the amount of support that was generated was immense, something that I do not think that we will see again. WotC's sales rode on a horse made of 3pp publishers.

3.X was a huge success, and deserved it - the OGL was a huge boon. It was a success that 4e wanted to build on, but instead they decided to shoot the horse that had helped them win the race last time. Another metaphor is that they wanted to put the genie back in the lamp, and he decided that he did not want to go.

The mishandling of the GSL, and the GSL itself, torpedoed much of the 3PP support that they could have had, adding another element of risk to that of the radical changes to the engine of the game. They had the resources, but handled the risk management poorly.

"It is also possible..." is the mother of all understatements. Even Paizo staff like Lisa Stevens are doing it.

As I said, I have not noticed it, but it is likely there. But I certainly do not blame Stevens for having voiced pride that by some accounts their risk in supporting the older engine had been more successful than they would have imagined.

The Auld Grump

 

[IronWolf]

Given ICv2's questionable methodology, I don't consider Pathfinder matching or exceeding 4E sales a given.

It seems when D&D was on top you seemed to place a little more trust in the ICv2 suggesting that it offered clear conclusions (from this post)

No actual data, so nothing "hard" out of this at all.

The roleplaying game category remains deeply troubled, with most brands down, and the gap between Dungeons and Dragons and the rest growing.

No specific data, but a clear conclusion that in the hobby channels, D&D is increasing market share.

Admittedly the ICv2 is not the be all end all report of RPG sales, but it has been consistent in its methodology over the years and certainly acts as a barometer to what is happening in the industry. And it seems at one time you used to think it a reasonable barometer as well.

I don't see Pathfinder doing 4E a disservice, I see Pathfinder doing 3E and all the good things WotC did with it a disservice. I'm not a believer in the OGL, and find it sad that WotC gave it away for free and now another company is cashing in on disgruntled fans of the previous edition.

The OGL is one of the things that helped really let 3.x gain steam and dig its hooks into a lot of people. It was a great thing and made for very exciting times within the hobby.

And cashing in? Sure the Pathfinder Core Rulebook had a large basis on 3.5 and was backwards compatible with some tweaks here and there to help shore up what some thought were weaknesses. But then they went on to start with their own more original tweaks with things in books like the APG and the Ultimate series of books. Paizo has been bringing a lot of innovation to the table with their subsequent source book releases.

And on top of all that - they still continue to release a massive portion of their rules under an open ruleset, readily available for free on sites like d20pfsrd.com and such.

"It is also possible..." is the mother of all understatements. Even Paizo staff like Lisa Stevens are doing it.

Lisa was overly celebratory? Where was this at? Has she expressed her pride? Yes. A good number of the big dogs at Paizo are frequently heard saying there is plenty of room for both systems and play what you like.

I firmly fall into the play the system you like camp. I don't feel the need to tear WotC down. I had a great time playing 3.5 and supported them with lots of dollars. They went to 4e and that game just didn't scratch my itch - I don't begrudge them for it or feel sleighted or cheated. Lucky for me another choice emerged that did fit what I wanted. But I can enjoy my game without bashing WotC or tearing down 4e as a "wrong" system.

 

[catastrophic]

Developers made a change to a game and the response was completely appropriate because it was not out of line in any way shape or form.

It was out of line, and it's not apropriate. It's not actually reasonable to say that 'these guys joking about bytopia can only be described using foul language'.

Grognards and 4eavengers are equally at blame for edition wars.

In any argument or conflict, it's easy to blame both sides, or to claim that both sides act equally poorly, or that everyone in a debate acts with equal merit. But frankly, that's just a way to avoid accountability for the people who actually do act poorly, and often a way to ignore the root causes of a conflict or negative outcome.

However 'grognards' have the illusion of having started it as they were the shall we say... injured party.

No, they have the reality of having kept it going for years because they clearly are and do. The sales numbers, the rumors, in fact any excuse people can find, will lead here. And it's not leading here because we fight back, it's leading here because of the same old agressors, looking for excuses, and being tolerated, in fact, encouraged in their behavior.

You don't see threads with fans of 4e bitching about Paizo or making bizzare personal statements about their employees or customers. There was no rumor this year about how WOTC was going to got o gencon and release "4.0.2.0: 'death to essentials fighters' edition". Nor was there a post-convention rumor about the rumor being true even through it was proven false and was never anything but laughable to begin with.

If Paizo faces a reversal in sales numbers later on, I doubt that anyone will mention it, least of all fans of 4e, regardless of how much 4e might gain from such numbers. And if sales did change, and 4e fans did take to crowing about sales numbers the way paizo fans do? The retaliation from the usual suspects would put a fuel-air bomb to shame.

I mean can any of you imagine what would happen if Mike Mearls came out and talked proudly about 4e gaining market share, the way Lisa Stevens has?

This vendetta is one way, and the same side is always the one keeping it going. Alll the other side does is occasionally mount a spirited defence, or just watch from a distance and laugh.

 

[Mournblade94]

I'm not a believer in the OGL, and find it sad that WotC gave it away for free and now another company is cashing in on disgruntled fans of the previous edition.


"It is also possible..." is the mother of all understatements. Even Paizo staff like Lisa Stevens are doing it.

I am quite sure you do not mean that you would rather see those disgruntled fans not have a supported game? Really without Paizo, many fans would have given up entirely.

I have a friend in my group who I played with for 25 years so far. He actually does wish Pathfinder was never made, because he beleives I would be running 4e and he likes the system better. I reject that because I would have given up on fantasy gaming altogether or just have continued to run 3.5.

For every grognard out there that seems to want WOTC to fail, there is a 4e avenger that wishes Paizo never made Pathfinder.

I don't care if their product is not so called 'original'. It is filling a vacuum in the market place. That is what businesses do. THey find markets. It is just Paizo's market was obvious. THe fact Wizards could not find that the market still existed is completely on their management. Paizo however should be commended for fulfilling a need. Otherwise those disgruntled fans would be much more disgruntled than they are now.

And Lisa Stevens SHOULD be patting herself on the back along with the other Paizo staff and freelancers.

I am glad that 4e players have the game they want. It really does seem though that the 4eavengers wish the grognards did not have thier game as well.