Pathfinder 1E If Paizo can, why can't Wizards of the Coast?

[ShinHakkaider]

It is true that by creating a new edition, and only creating new material for that edition, WotC is no longer proving new information to grow and change 3.5 or 1e (while still keeping them 1e or 3.5, whatever that means). But so is Archie Comics by producing new issues of "Betty and Veronica." Neither Betty and Veronica, nor 4e, contain new material for 3.5. But neither eliminates the already existing material.

So why is 4e the villian, but Bettie and Veronica isn't?

Wait? WHAT?

Now you're not even comparing RPG's anymore? Now you're using RPG's and comics? One which is a single user experience that requires no other people to participate in and the other requires more than one person and rulebooks and dice?

And this is supposed to help your argument how exactly?

It is possible that in the future you may no longer be able to find old copies of obscure D&D books (though really, it's not that hard to find out-of-print books) but is that the fault of WotC? If there aren't enough buyers to justify WotC or another company selling the older books, why should they? There is a pro-3.5 thing here. Apparently, enough people like 3.5 to justify another company (Paizo) making new material for it (Pathfinder). Bully for 3.5! I still don't see how 4e impacts it negatively.

It does seem, like the OP stated, that there is a double standard here for a WotC products vs. non-WotC products.

So now there's a pro 3.5 / Pathfinder slant here? There might be but d00d your arguments would be better served if there were actually structured better instead of saying "You don't like 4E, that's why youre wrong" and then covering your ears.

 

[Wicht]

It does seem, like the OP stated, that there is a double standard here for a WotC products vs. non-WotC products.

You did read my original analogy, answering this question right, about why one edition change gets grief that another does not?

Change itself is not the problem. Its the nature of the changes. Some people like the new changes, others do not. But not all changes are equal in nature and its foolish to begin an argument that one must hold every change to be perfectly equal to every other change.

 

[Umbran]

So why is the PDF issue an issue with so many people then?

The exception that proves the rule.

Are you saying they aren't really enthusiasts or they would have already had all of what the wanted?

Oh, they're enthusiasts, all right. But, desire for a media refresh is not the same as desire for continued production.

As for the car enthusiast: it is my observation that old Car manuals continue to sell. I would put this down to two things. Old Enthusiasts moving onto working on a car they have not yet worked on and New Enthusiasts just coming into the fold. No doubt the new repair manuals always sell better than the old but the old are nevertheless still being produced and distributed.

Still an analogy failure - there really isn't a repair manual. Only the car itself.

I know car enthusiasts, too, you know. I've never seen the sense of entitlement. When they buy something from the 1950s of 1960s, and intend to work on it, they know full well that parts and information are going to be difficult to find. Not a one of them seems to be under the illusion that the old manufacturer is under any onus to continue providing anything.

Rather, seeking out the resources to work with the old thing is an integral part of the hobby, part of what makes it interesting. If everything were still available on the shelf, with no needing to search eBay, or junk yards, or learn how to machine your own on occasion (or network with other enthusiasts until you find someone who can), then most of them wouldn't care so much about it. It is only worth doing because it isn't easy!

So, continuing failure to torque the analogy to fit. Please, have mercy upon it.

 

[LuckyAdrastus]

@ ShinHakkaider

We shouldn't be raising out voices.

I don't say that you aren't allowed to comment on 4e if you don't like 4e. I was asking a different question -- if someone doesn't like 4e, and doesn't play 4e, why do they have an opinion on whether 4e uses errata or not, or at one pace or another?

If the answer is "because 3.5 is harmed" I just don't understand; how?

I guess the answer is "because they think 3.5 [or whatever preferred version of D&D] is harmed." But I still don't understand the facts underlying that belief. All of the 3.5 material exists (plus Pathfinder!).

 

[Wicht]

Why does 4e have the responsibility to be 3.5, where the other games don't?

That's the wrong question.

4e has the responsibility to be Dungeons and Dragons, which the other games don't. That is not to say that it is not, but its a very particular, narrow flavor of Dungeons and Dragons that is obviously not to everyone's tastes.

To get back to the car analogy. A Ferrari should be a Ferrari. I won't be upset if a Ferrari fails to be a family sized mini-van. If I was a Ferrari fan though, I might be upset if the company decides to start exclusively making motorcycles and tries to tell me that its faster than ever, in the true Ferrarri tradition. Sure, its fast, but I might be excused if I think something has been lost.

 

[Wicht]

Rather, seeking out the resources to work with the old thing is an integral part of the hobby, part of what makes it interesting. If everything were still available on the shelf, with no needing to search eBay, or junk yards, or learn how to machine your own on occasion (or network with other enthusiasts until you find someone who can), then most of them wouldn't care so much about it. It is only worth doing because it isn't easy!

So, continuing failure to torque the analogy to fit. Please, have mercy upon it.

I admit the analogy is stretched some. And I'm probably not talking so much about old car enthusiasts as I am about auto mechanics working on cars from say the '90s. It is a differnent mindset.

 

[LuckyAdrastus]

That's the wrong question.

4e has the responsibility to be Dungeons and Dragons, which the other games don't. That is not to say that it is not, but its a very particular, narrow flavor of Dungeons and Dragons that is obviously not to everyone's tastes.

To get back to the car analogy. A Ferrari should be a Ferrari. I won't be upset if a Ferrari fails to be a family sized mini-van. If I was a Ferrari fan though, I might be upset if the company decides to start exclusively making motorcycles and tries to tell me that its faster than ever, in the true Ferrarri tradition. Sure, its fast, but I might be excused if I think something has been lost.

I see what you are getting at, in terms of explaining why a fan of an earlier edition (whichever) would be angry at 4e. By releasing 4e (and other new editions), Wizards is stopping or slowing the earlier editions from gaining new content. Also, players who might have played the earlier edition may play the new edition. 4e means it is probably harder to find a 3.5 game, just as 3.5 made it harder to find a 3.0 game, and so forth.

However, you can still always play the game if you want and you have friends who want to -- the material is still there (just as a Ferrarri enthusiast could keep his car nearly indefinetely even if they were discontintued -- there are still plenty of nearly 100 year old Model T's floating around, they even have speciality manufacturers making replacements pieces (according to Wikipedia!).

Back to WotC's (allegedly) different standard, doesn't WoD also make it harder to find a 3.5 game? Someone lured away from 3.5 by 4e could also have been lured away by WoD (or vice versa, of course). At that level, I don't see a difference between 4e and WoD on its effect on 3.5. They are both potential competitors (or inspirations).

To a narrower degree, I can see it as a fight over "what is D&D?" If you think it is only 3.5, you're not going to like 4e. But does it actually matter "what" D&D is? The game is so mutable that every game is going to be different anyway. So it OK that at various times, WotC/TSR had 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 different versions, and you can pick and choose the one you like?

If you thought that version 1 --> 5 were improvements, but 5 -- > 8 were travesties, it doesn't mean that making new versions is wrong, it just means that you think the new versions they made weren't made right (correctly or incorrectly).

 

[LuckyAdrastus]

I admit the analogy is stretched some. And I'm probably not talking so much about old car enthusiasts as I am about auto mechanics working on cars from say the '90s. It is a differnent mindset.

I like this car talk.

Any disagreements about D&D aside, you sound like someone it would be fun to have a chat with.

(I was going to give you XP, but the system won't let me give new XP right now b/c it says I've given too much xp in the last 24 hours).

 

[BryonD]

Not a one of them seems to be under the illusion that the old manufacturer is under any onus to continue providing anything.

I agree with this. WotC has absolutely no obligation to provide anything to me and the fact that they don't choose to market to the prior demand is not a justification for complaint. Disappointment may be appropriate, but not complaint.

But, to me, the good news is that the debate has evolved to the point of discussing whether or not the old demand has a right to complain about not being serviced, since the debate used to be that the new edition provided the same stuff the old one did.

 

[Umbran]

But, to me, the good news is that the debate has evolved to the point of discussing whether or not the old demand has a right to complain about not being serviced, since the debate used to be that the new edition provided the same stuff the old one did.

I am slightly confused. Are you talking about this particular thread, or something larger?

If the latter, I think you're incorrect, in that there never has been a single "the debate". Maybe the things you remember most were arguments about whether the newer editions provided the same stuff. But I, at least, recall any number of varied points, of which that's only one.