Pathfinder 1E Could Pathfinder take D&D's place...

[BryonD]

But, at the end of the day, it wouldn't play out hugely different.

Just for the record, this might be true in the most broad of strokes, but IME, just the simple difference of playing 4E vs PF makes things play out hugely different from morning to the end of the day. No argument about preference from one to another, play what you like. But neither preferring apples to oranges nor finding them both awesome makes an orange into an apple.

(And even if someone, somehow, can't even feel or taste the difference for themselves, apples STILL are not oranges)

 

[Umbran]

Are you actually pointing out that something somewhere had "roles" before MMOs existed and expecting that to come across as news AND suggesting that this common knowledge therefore somehow invalidates any significance to the specific implementation of "roles" in the topic at hand?
Or did you forget to make your point?

How about you not get snarky, hm?

I've made that very point myself before, and to some, it does give them perspective on the matter that they lacked. The idea that roles have existed, in some sense, since the wargaming roots of RPGs, and before, is not necessarily apparent to everyone.

 

[Pentius]

Another difference between 4e and PF, is that in PF I have a limited number of classes that through archetypes creates many flavors (dozens of options), while in 4e, I have dozens of classes that all fit the same four roles. Kind of looking at the same problem from opposite points of view. I don't need dozens and dozens of classes to achieve the variety of character builds. A dozen is fine for me, really, I could live with a lot less (I really don't need most of the new classes from the APG.)

Archetypes allow me to build anything that I'd possibly want to play with, within the socalled limit of the classes. While 4e's direction is certainly viable, it isn't the fix that I prefer. PF does it for me better.

Yes and no. 4e has a bunch of classes, but each of those classes has builds that can take it in different directions and even if two classes are both the same role, they tend to fill it in different ways. A Tempest Fighter and a Polearm Fighter are going to play out quite differently, and they'll both be different from a Swordmage, even though they all count as Defenders. Sorta like how you could play a Wizard or a Sorcerer or a Summoner(I'm guessing on Summoner) in PF and though they are all different, at the end of the day, they're all your Magic Guy.


In addition, different classes of different roles can often fill the same rough archetype, allowing you to tackle the same character concept from different directions. For instance, if I were keen on playing a character who mixed arcane magic with swordplay, I could play that as a Swordmage, a Hexblade, a bard, or a Bladesinger(I think Bladesinger is out now), and I'd be filling that concept from any of the four roles.

 

[gamerprinter]

Yes and no. 4e has a bunch of classes, but each of those classes has builds that can take it in different directions and even if two classes are both the same role, they tend to fill it in different ways. A Tempest Fighter and a Polearm Fighter are going to play out quite differently, and they'll both be different from a Swordmage, even though they all count as Defenders. Sorta like how you could play a Wizard or a Sorcerer or a Summoner(I'm guessing on Summoner) in PF and though they are all different, at the end of the day, they're all your Magic Guy.

Well, yeah, that's obviously the case. Just because 10 different classes are defenders, doesn't mean they remotely operate the same, they are all accomplishing the same role - but certainly not the exact same way...

How the classes are designed is not a problem for me - how it plays, however, is what I don't care for. All the unnecessary movement on the battlefield, sometime with and sometimes without damage - it makes for long battles (too long) with too much bouncing around the table. Not my game.

In the end, I would rather not be discussing 4e in a PF thread in the PF forum. Let's disuss Pathfinder instead...

 

[Hussar]

Are you actually pointing out that something somewhere had "roles" before MMOs existed and expecting that to come across as news AND suggesting that this common knowledge therefore somehow invalidates any significance to the specific implementation of "roles" in the topic at hand?
Or did you forget to make your point?

Wow, just come out swinging huh?

My point is, as Umbran also pointed out, is that the idea of roles hardly originate in MMO's. People point to the existence of roles in 4e as if that clearly shows that 4e is just a tabletop MMO. The fact of the matter is, roles in team play have been recognized for quite a lot longer than the mid(ish) 90's when MMO's start making the scene.

The only thing MMO's have done, perhaps, is codified the language, but, the concepts exist because they appear in virtually any group fiction that has a fair bit of physical conflict. You can look at quite a few genre works in the light of the 4 roles and they do fit pretty well. Not all mind you. But, more than a few.

Heck, even the original three classes mapped onto roles - infantry, artillery, medic. The language used to describe the roles may have evolved some in the last thirty years or so, but, the baseline has existed for much, much longer than MMO's.

Well, yeah, that's obviously the case. Just because 10 different classes are defenders, doesn't mean they remotely operate the same, they are all accomplishing the same role - but certainly not the exact same way...

How the classes are designed is not a problem for me - how it plays, however, is what I don't care for. All the unnecessary movement on the battlefield, sometime with and sometimes without damage - it makes for long battles (too long) with too much bouncing around the table. Not my game.

In the end, I would rather not be discussing 4e in a PF thread in the PF forum. Let's disuss Pathfinder instead...

For you it's a bug, for 4e fans, I'm thinking battlefield mobility is a feature. Different strokes most definitely.

 

[gamerprinter]

My next point isn't universal regarding 4e, I don't think, however, being a cartographer, I've had it pointed out to me by a 4e gamer, that my maps are not condusive to 4e play... sometimes I feature 5' wide hallways, sometimes there are 20' x 30' rooms in a dungeon or castle (for example). This type of design inhibits battlefield mobility.

My response to that is that dungeon/castle/battlefield design (at least the way I do it) is based on historical/architectural designs of such places. I don't create maps based on needed movement requirements for a given game system, as I see maps as being game system agnostic.

If a hallway is too tight for a given special movement - I say, 'tough', that just happens to be the architectural layout of a given locatlon.

In any real combat incident, the terrain always determines which tactics should be taken, and sometimes a given terrain does inhibit a specific tactic. This is true in real life and should certainly also be true in game.

Perhaps not all 4e gamers feel this is an issue, but since it was brought to my attention as a cartographer from a 4e fan - I thought it was worth mentioning. (Though this is certainly another tangent from the OP).

 

[Siberys]

Well, I'd just say the guy you spoke with was looking at the rooms individually instead of as a group. Small rooms and thin corridors can make a dynamic combat scene - especially if there's, say, a highly mobile inter-room fight going on.

 

[BryonD]

I've made that very point myself before, and to some, it does give them perspective on the matter that they lacked. The idea that roles have existed, in some sense, since the wargaming roots of RPGs, and before, is not necessarily apparent to everyone.

And this actually makes a point. IMO it still isn't really a significant point, but making a point is vastly better than just stating the glaringly obvious.

I can't recall EVER not having the default party of "fighter, cleric, thief, magic-user". That baseline was always there. That isn't remotely to say that everyone stuck to it or even expected that it would be stuck to. But parties were, in part, defined by how they differed from this baseline.

The pure concept of roles has been around forever and there are much better and on point examples than strong guys in comics.

But a key element of the topic comes down to how those roles are much more precisely defined, both conceptually and mathematically in 4E. I'm WAY outside the 4E is WOW camp, but there are points of commonality and if I wanted to make the "they are the same" devil's advocate argument, that would probably be right on the top of my list. The term "roles" fits very readily into any conversation about any D&D edition. But the implementation and details of that term is very distinct for 4E.

To use the fact that a purely superficial reference to the term applies as a means of passing off the iceberg of distinction beneath only contributes to misunderstanding of the issue. IMO

 

[Hussar]

/snip

The pure concept of roles has been around forever and there are much better and on point examples than strong guys in comics.

/snip

Of course, if you actually bothered to read what other people write, you'd see that I said this is where I first came across the term. Wasn't making any larger statement than that.

And, of course, it's not strong guys, but an actual character called Strong Guy[/i].

But, I can see that this is just going to go straight down the toilet, so, I'll be stepping out now. Nice to see that the defenders of all things 3e are still keeping the pimp arm strong.

You have a good day now.

 

[BryonD]

Of course, if you actually bothered to read what other people write, you'd see that I said this is where I first came across the term. Wasn't making any larger statement than that.

I originally quoted your entire post.....

You presented it as a noteworthy conclusion.

Nice to see that the defenders of all things 3e are still keeping the pimp arm strong.

yeah, because all that grand total of zero references to 3E here showed that this is all about defending "all things" 3E pimp style and had nothing to do with challenging that actual point made.

I'd say this absolute straw man of a dodge is pretty telling.