D&D 5E Gamehole Con Live Tweeting Perkins Panel

[sgtscott658]

Who knows, maybe WotC will reprint the 4E books in deluxe style like they did for 3.5 a few years ago.

but you said "You don't blame the icy road" how is that not nullifying the icy road?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

As a stance that completely fails to take into account the rise of OSR which was already evident, the return of an admittedly small number of people that had returned to a 1/2e style of play in reaction to a game that was bloating out of their comfort zone.

since not 1 of my lost players went back to an OSR, I'm not sure how I could fail to take it into account... it had 0 effect.

I'll be frank, I didn't like 4e as a roleplaying game.

I on the other hand love it...

It was fun as a tactical boardgame but the rinse, wash repeat style it seemed to engender did not appeal to me in the long term. I bought the core bundle and the first two or three adventures. I really tried to find something in it that would hold me, but it wasn't there.

I honestly don't even understand this... I mean at all

So I would have kept on with 3.5e with or without Pathfinder.

and as I stated that would always be some people...

And it is that rather than anything else that created the perfect storm that catapulted Paizo to success. They had a product that supported my current style of game with little effort to adjust. In fact the extra punch they gave characters from the off matched some ideas I had but did it more elegantly than I would have.

good for you, all I see is enough changes to stop me from using my 3.5 supliments, and not enough to address real problems in the game...

The edition war that followed had a bunch of people on the web claiming they were trying to put the fire out but seemed to be trying to do that with petrol.

not just on the webs (although most likely worst there) but at COns, and FLGS, and even home games...

It got out of hand far more easily but that reflected the nature of the changes in the 'Net over the intervening years since 2e vs 3e.

yes again goes to my theory...

The degree of the change in the game didn't help.

but how much more open to change are you when you don't have someone saying "Instead we will make more the same...

I was a stick in the mud. But I had no reason to change. I also didn't play the blame game, but would give my opinion when asked and some people didn't like that I didn't like something they did.

yea that story was common

 

[Bugleyman]

I am surprised - and very pleased - to learn that the OGL may be making a come-back. Not something "like" the OGL, mind you, but the OGL. Maybe they learned something from the implosion of 4E after all.

I want to believe...but for me at least, it's wait and see.

 

[Kaychsea]

since not 1 of my lost players went back to an OSR, I'm not sure how I could fail to take it into account... it had 0 effect.

To you. But it was a known and significant phenomenon which was simply writ bigger between 3.5/4.

I on the other hand love it...

Oddly enough I had that impression. It did seem to be the Marmite edition though.

I honestly don't even understand this... I mean at all

Which seems to display a lack of imagination. I can understand that people like it, I just have no idea why. Which probably displays just as bad a lack in myself, but I can live with it.

good for you, all I see is enough changes to stop me from using my 3.5 supliments, and not enough to address real problems in the game...

You really couldn't see how to use their material in a 3.5 game? I can see why you might not want to rejig an ongoing campaign, although it's not that hard, certainly easier than doing it for 4e.

not just on the webs (although most likely worst there) but at COns, and FLGS, and even home games...

The sense of entitlement that drives most web arguments leaks into real life. Particularly when people can't defend their own position without attacking someone else's.

yes again goes to my theory...

OK... can't see why though, unless you are now blaming Paizo for the existence of flamewars.

but how much more open to change are you when you don't have someone saying "Instead we will make more the same...

Why do I have to be? What if I really like what they have done, or in absence of that am happy knocking out my own material for 3.5? Which is largely what I did do.

yea that story was common

Mainly because you weren't allowed not to have an opinion, or a side. Both sides were as bad as each other for that. It's what flamewars are. The very act of not agreeing with someone is seen as a grievous affront, when most of the time they just don't like what you like and don't really care if you do.

 

[Morrus]

Ok, sorry for comparing the way this place is moderated to nazis. My bust.

I accept your apology, given that you're new here, with the caveat that the next time you pop up out of the blue to call me a Nazi or invite me to ban you, I'll accept your invitation to ask you to leave. Now, please enjoy the community!

 

[Mercurius]

[MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION], I think I lost the momentum of the conversation and it seems it has carried on without me. A few thoughts to add into the mix.

I think a key point to consider is that Pathfinder, as someone stated up-thread, was possible because of a perfect storm - and a major part of that was simply the fact that a lot of people still loved 3.5 *and* disliked 4E. So while you create a causal chain of blame of OGL -> Pathfinder -> edition wars -> demise of 4E, you seem unwilling to include 4If E as part of that, that the game itself was somehow not involved in its own demise.

In other words, Pathfinder was possible largely because a lot of folks didn't like 4E. If we must assign blame--and I'm not saying we should--then 4E has to be part of the mix.

Anyhow, even if we play make believe and imagine Pathfinder never existing, do you think that 4E would have thrived? If it hadn't been Pathfinder, wouldn't it have been something else?

 

[The_Gneech]

I can confidently say that in my case, if it hadn't been Pathfinder, it would have been Savage Worlds. As it is, even with Pathfinder, it was almost Savage Worlds anyway.

-The Gneech

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Which seems to display a lack of imagination. I can understand that people like it, I just have no idea why. Which probably displays just as bad a lack in myself, but I can live with it.

It's not that I can't understand not likeing it, it's the reason... if you said "I don't like balanced characters" or "The fights took too long" or "The skills were way too limited" or "I disliked narrative powers" or "Magic items felt boreing" I could get all of those (some of them I even agree with, since it was far from perfect) I don't understand YOUR complaint about rinse repeat...

You really couldn't see how to use their material in a 3.5 game? I can see why you might not want to rejig an ongoing campaign, although it's not that hard, certainly easier than doing it for 4e.

No, not at all. You make wizards and clerics BETTER when they are already top tear classes, and you screw with the whole way feats work and it takes a lot of rules manipulation...

The sense of entitlement that drives most web arguments leaks into real life. Particularly when people can't defend their own position without attacking someone else's.

I will again blame tribalism... I joined A or B side... now I have to defend it even when I should not...

I will liken it to 3rd grade. I got a NES, and a friend down the street got a sega. Both of us had home consules... but some how we always argued over witch was better... the best part is that our friends ended up picking one or the other to be 'best' Years later I look back and laugh.

OK... can't see why though, unless you are now blaming Paizo for the existence of flamewars.

no, but they did throw gas on some of them...

Why do I have to be? What if I really like what they have done, or in absence of that am happy knocking out my own material for 3.5? Which is largely what I did do.

ok... my scenero always had people like you accounted for...

Mainly because you weren't allowed not to have an opinion, or a side. Both sides were as bad as each other for that. It's what flamewars are. The very act of not agreeing with someone is seen as a grievous affront, when most of the time they just don't like what you like and don't really care if you do.

exactly, and it still crops up from time to time...

[MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION], I think I lost the momentum of the conversation and it seems it has carried on without me. A few thoughts to add into the mix.

I think a key point to consider is that Pathfinder, as someone stated up-thread, was possible because of a perfect storm - and a major part of that was simply the fact that a lot of people still loved 3.5 *and* disliked 4E. So while you create a causal chain of blame of OGL -> Pathfinder -> edition wars -> demise of 4E, you seem unwilling to include 4If E as part of that, that the game itself was somehow not involved in its own demise.

1st, 4e was far from perfect, and was never going to be the end all be all..
2nd there is 0 evadance I ever said anything like "unwilling to include 4If E as part of that, that the game itself was somehow not involved in its own demise"
3rd if no OGL (or a more limited controlled version) then Piazo would have still done something... but it would not be 3.75 aka pathfinder
4th the chain is very easy to see, when no one can continue to publish editions slowly die, when someone CAN continue they hold on to x% of there player base, pathfinder was the first time an active one was cloned...

In other words, Pathfinder was possible largely because a lot of folks didn't like 4E. If we must assign blame--and I'm not saying we should--then 4E has to be part of the mix.

and again, no one said it wasn't. However pathfinder was too...

Anyhow, even if we play make believe and imagine Pathfinder never existing, do you think that 4E would have thrived? If it hadn't been Pathfinder, wouldn't it have been something else?

I honestly believe that more people would have tried 4e, and some % of them would have liked it, that the vitriol and flame wars (still there) would be less and the tribalism would have not formed so tightly.

so I don't know if it would have made a big enough difference... but it would have made some...

 

[The_Gneech]

This community was fractured by the Edition Wars. A full half of the community relocated to paizo.com in a fairly short period. I don't blame Pathfinder; I blame myself for letting it happen. It has been a long 5 years rebuilding.

As a former heavy-poster who mostly lurked during the 4E era and returned with the new system, I would say that what happened at ENWorld was symptomatic of what we were all going through. I know that in my own case, I went to the Paizo boards because I felt strongly on the PF vs. 4E subject and I didn't want to put myself into the position of being tempted to engage in edition warring.

I can't speak for anyone else of course, but I really don't think there's much more you could have done. The entire fandom was engaged in a metaphorical civil war, with ENWorld's prominent status making it an inevitable battleground. I think the fact that so many of us deliberately withdrew to avoid doing damage to it speaks to the regard ENWorld is held in.

-TG

 

[robconley]

The real Jerk behavior didn't start until Piazo put out the beta playtest... someone (I think it was Jim) found a bunch of posters on one of the boards that had this very huge hate of anything WotC, saying they were sell outs and destroying D&D, and that Piazo was the true spiritual holder of D&D... and some of that group took that to heart. I can't imagine a scenero where that split happens without pathfinder... around the same time Ross got into that argument at Gen COn, and he and Kurt were venemusly anti pathfinder... that lead to a clash...

The split would have a occurred regardless. It just would not have been as organized or had products as well produced as Paizos at first. Instead of a single large company dominating you would had three or four about the size of a game publishers that not TSR, Wizards, or Paizo.

Why? Because of the OGL, but not just because of the OGL. The rise of ebooks in the form of PDFs, and Print on Demand would have allowed a multitude of people to try for very little capital and a handful growing large enough to become regular game companies. Pretty would have paralleled the OSR but with a far larger fanbase to draw from and a much clearer legal situation to deal with.

D&D 4e was doomed by the fact it was not D&D except for the brand. Didn't matter how good a game it was. In fact 4e woes had little to do with its quality.

For the first time in the history of the D&D brand the fanbase had the choice of opting out of a new edition. And they did in numbers, Paizo happened to be the 3.5 publishers that was able to take most advantage of the situation. But it would have happen regardless of whether Paizo existed or not because D&D 4e was a completely different game than 3.5e