Is Encounters dying?
- Thread starter Samurai
- Start date
Dannager
First Post
Yes take up thy 4e defender shield and start beating upon it loudly!
Quit the posturing. If this had been about Pathfinder Society and someone had suggested that in order to increase participation you ought to consider advocating Pathfinder more strongly, you wouldn't have had a complaint.
It wasn't stated to read nicely. It was stated to read matter-of-factly.
What? I'm not in the habit of ragging on games I have no interest in just to make me feel better about my game of choice. When I say that he should focus on the things 4e does better than Pathfinder, that doesn't mean I'm saying that 4e is better than Pathfinder. It means that I'm acknowledging that differences between the two exist, and that one system might put emphasis and design effort towards things the other does not. Therefore, there will be parts of one game that are more enjoyable, and parts of the other game that are more enjoyable, to differing degrees. He should focus on what makes 4e great, instead of trying to show them that they can have the same Pathfinder-esque experience in 4e. While the latter can certainly be done (and it's something I'm pretty into), it's not the best way to show off the merits and draw of 4e.
From your following paragraph it appears that we both agree on the same things. Next time, don't read too far into what I'm saying. Not every sentence that comes out of a "partisan's" mouth is a volley in the edition wars.
Dannager
First Post
Rad. I ran some of the Encounters sessions at PAX East 2010, and this is exactly the sort of mentality we were hoping people would leave the con with.
Herremann the Wise
First Post
Incorrect. It would of made me think "don't do that, strongly advocating and beating the Pathfinder drum is not going to help a single jot and could only alienate 4e players who may have been encouraged to try it". My "posturing" was in response to both the content and tenor of the partisan post that I quoted and your initial "pile-on" post that blindly assumed that Samurai was just relying on folks turning up and that was why he was having trouble keeping Encounters going. I am only responding to what you have posted and considering that I'm edition neutral, I would hesitate to title that "posturing".
Just "some" of the players playing it huh? I think that is the primary problem I have with your post - the rest I just disagree with.
There's no point mincing your words in an obfuscatory cloud of qualifications; it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. It's like gravy on roast beef or maple syrup on pancakes. They BOTH taste good. Encounters should be about getting people to try something that's fun, not an opportunity for partisan comparison against other systems. WotC made this marketing mistake when introducing 4e and there is little to be gained in repeating it.
Incorrect. You were "advocating" a particularly partisan approach; I was "suggesting" a more inclusive approach that would hopefully not alienate potential players or isolate the poor DM trying to organise it. I see significant differences between our two approaches. Lost in all of this is the unfortunate thing that Samurai has not sat on his bum with Encounters but has actively and repeatedly tried to get Encounters happening and literally needs just one more player turning up to keep the ball rolling. That must be very frustrating.
My suggestion then is not to send out matter-of-fact-not-meant-to-be-nice-some-Pathfinder-players-are-sheep volleys in the first place. It does nothing to assist and can only ever lead to further division in a hobby that really doesn't need it.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
Kralin Thornberry
Explorer
Never got my stuff for this season, after MANY emails to CS.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Where I play Encounters, we peaked at 4 tables durring the Dark Sun season. We've been stable at two since part way into the first Essentials season, though it's sometimes two tables of 6 players each. So, not bad.
I really don't think it's that bizarre to think that a variable amount of people have ill will towards 4e despite having never played it due to grognard backlash. God knows I've encountered it plenty of times myself.
In these occasions, the best thing you can do is to play the actual game with them and hope they'll allow themselves to be proven wrong.
Sadly, sometimes they won't be, and they will fight you every step of the way with the game because their mind is already made.
In these occasions, the best thing you can do is to play the actual game with them and hope they'll allow themselves to be proven wrong.
Sadly, sometimes they won't be, and they will fight you every step of the way with the game because their mind is already made.
Samurai
Adventurer
As someone who has run both PF and 4e, as well as many other games, I really feel that "system matters". If you try to run the exact same adventure using Spirit of the Century/FATE, Gurps, and Rolemaster, you'll find they play out very differently due to the systems. These differences aren't just in peoples' heads, they are hard-coded into the game's rules and assumptions.
Given that, I don't really disagree that 4e really is designed as a more tactical hack-n-slash kind of game than PF. I still have fun with both games, but they are not interchangeable. I converted Specter Tower of Spellgard to PF and that alone demonstrated the differences in the games styles and assumptions.
Besides, if I have to force someone to be there, they aren't going to have fun... it has to be their choice, in order to go into it with an open mind.
Dannager
First Post
I think they're pretty darn close to interchangeable.
I mean, yeah, system matters. There are some things that 4e does better then Pathfinder, and yes, things Pathfinder does better then 4e.
I wouldn't say 4e is more of a hack and slash, though. I will say that 4e has better combat, which leads to combat being more often, which in turn leads to games having a higher combat-to-other-stuff ratio, but that doesn't mean 4e is a hack and slash, it means 4e combat doesn't make my eyeballs bleed.
I wouldn't say 4e is more of a hack and slash, though. I will say that 4e has better combat, which leads to combat being more often, which in turn leads to games having a higher combat-to-other-stuff ratio, but that doesn't mean 4e is a hack and slash, it means 4e combat doesn't make my eyeballs bleed.
