Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux")

[HolyMan]

I have only read through the first page of this 6 day old 18 + page monster so please put me in the corner (with a dunce cap) if I tarry to far off topic.

On the first page they started talking about edition wars, and as a player of AD&D, 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e, and even Basic. So I wanted to give a little insight.

When I was playing 1e and my friends said we need to switch to 2e I was like "Don't think so." and then I saw an adventure in Dungeon mag. called "Tallow's Deep" (highly recommend btw) and I remember saying this I have to run. And after that all we played was 2e.

Then 3e came out and I was like cool and bought it. Back then you bought just about everything that came out. You were a gamer. You owned it all no matter if it sat around or not. But 3e was a change from THAC0 and Saves were so foreign I was going to keep with 2e. Then I saw The Sunless Citadel and was all over it to convert that, but the more you get to reading the more you just want to run through it as is. So I made the switch.

For me it is was all about the great support they gave to us gamers. We didn't have the internet but had plenty of support. Worlds and adventures, articles and stories. And that was were I think 4e came in lacking at least for me. I didn't own a computer till about two years ago. No more Dragon or Dungeon mag, only the one setting. On top of a new rules system I see as foreign to what I had been playing for ten years.

But I bought the books (still have them), bought the modules - and have ran a group through the first two using 3.5e rules - So yes it is the memories but it is also the support and connection from those who make these products that fuels my drive to want to play one system over another. It should always be a game made by gamers for gamers.

I am heavy into playing Pathfinder right now but when someone asks me what I'm doing I say "I'm playing D&D."

HM

 

[Dannager]

Likewise, there are those of us who feel that the original, classic editions are better overall versions of the game than the modern "remakes" of D&D. It's not nostalgia - it's just a personal preference and a subjective judgment of overall quality.

So, not to say that this is necessarily where you or anyone else interested in old school D&D is coming from, but I'm sure you can understand that one of the things nostalgia does is make one believe that their preference is motivated by a good-faith judgment of quality.

 

[HolyMan]

Then I stand corrected- that IS an example of authentic brand association.

I like this one better...

HM

 

[Dannager]

I like this one better...

Not to cast Paizo in a poor light in any way whatsoever (since this is actually quite smart, and an extremely valid tactic), but it's interesting to examine this bit of copy.

First, it begins by setting up an adversarial situation between WotC and Pathfinder by using the word "survives". The use of this word implies that WotC attempted to "kill" 3.5. While that may be true from a certain perspective, highlighting that was a tactical decision on Paizo's part. (And, mind you, 3.5 was no more "killed" than 3e, 2e, 1e, or any other version of the game before it was.)

This simultaneously casts Pathfinder as the underdog, crawling out from beneath WotC's bootheel, and personifies it, treating an edition of a game as though it were a living creature. This is also brilliant - the concept of a rising underdog is a powerful one that people enjoy getting behind.

Finally, it nixes the "3.5 survives" line and replaces it with "3.5 thrives", the ultimate "Ha-hah! Take that!" response.

Essentially, this marketing strategy cast 3.5/Pathfinder as the metaphorical star in an epic tale of a rise from oppression. Not only was Paizo acutely aware of the splinters falling away from the D&D community, but it was in their best interest to encourage and leverage that splintering.

 

[wedgeski]

No-one should begrudge Paizo a good bit of marketing. Their brand association goes all the way back to saying their product was compatible with "the world's best selling RPG" or similar copy on adverts in Dungeon for their GameMastery products. Their business model, at the moment, likely relies almost entirely on capturing and keeping disenfranchised 3E players, so the "3.5 Thrives!" jab shouldn't come as a shock.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I like Pathfinder, but there's plenty of people who don't, and they were just as miffed at the whole "3.5 thrives!" thing as many here were miffed at 4e's marketing.

 

[Azgulor]

I like Pathfinder, but there's plenty of people who don't, and they were just as miffed at the whole "3.5 thrives!" thing as many here were miffed at 4e's marketing.

I'm not understanding why. "3.5 thrives" seems to me to just be a tag-line to draw fans of 3.5 in. I don't see anything implicity negative to 4e or its fans in that statement.

Most of the people, myself included, who took issue with the 4e marketing felt that WotC was slamming the 3e system, or at least over-exaggerating it's flaws, which seemed more than a tad hypocritical given they were happy to take customers' money for that system for the previous 8 years.

Then there were the digs at customers who weren't 100% on board, which didn't help, either. Whether those digs were reality or just perceived is still open for debate, but there's a pretty significant portion of the D&D fanbase that felt they were real.

I'm just not seeing how "3.5 thrives" carries the same tone or weight as the multiple issues some fans have with the 4e marketing.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So, not to say that this is necessarily where you or anyone else interested in old school D&D is coming from, but I'm sure you can understand that one of the things nostalgia does is make one believe that their preference is motivated by a good-faith judgment of quality.

I still fail to see how nostalgia has anything to do with the conclusions that someone comes to based not on memories of long ago but of the awesome adventure from the past week. What role does nostalgia play exactly, when evaluating how great a current campaign is running?

What about younger gamers who are enjoying playing older editions? Gamers just like what they like and usually because it is what they enjoy the most. Sometimes, a memory from fondly remembered times will trigger a desire to revisit a game long forgotten. That is nostalgia for certain. If they then enjoy playing that game and decide to continue doing so it will be because it was actually fun in the present.

I will be personally putting this to the test soon. Next week I will start running an AD&D 1E campaign for the first time since 1989. I have played and run some Basic D&D since then and played in a single AD&D session in 1999. I will find out for myself if the glasses are rose colored or crystal clear.

 

[pawsplay]

I like Pathfinder, but there's plenty of people who don't, and they were just as miffed at the whole "3.5 thrives!" thing as many here were miffed at 4e's marketing.

What justifiable reason does someone have to miffed that "3.5 thrives?" Is it unseemly to be glad to be able to play a game you enjoy?

 

[pawsplay]

Not to cast Paizo in a poor light in any way whatsoever (since this is actually quite smart, and an extremely valid tactic), but it's interesting to examine this bit of copy.

First, it begins by setting up an adversarial situation between WotC and Pathfinder by using the word "survives". The use of this word implies that WotC attempted to "kill" 3.5.

No, what set up the adversarial situation was WotC attempting to "kill" 3.5. In the process of doing so, they also took away Dragon and Dungeon.

Along the way, they also created a fiasco by ordering Paizo to stop making available PDF downloads people had already paid for.