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

[DaveMage]

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?

I doubt there were very many (if any) 3.5 fans miffed at the Paizo marketing. Some didn't like the changes in Pathfinder, but no one was miffed at the marketing anywhere near the same level some 3.x fans were miffed at the 4E marketing.

Now, some 4E fans may have been miffed at the Paizo marketing - I don't know. But then, who can understand THOSE people?

 

[Imaro]

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.

Hey now... let's not forget the GSL debacle as well...

 

[WheresMyD20]

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.

There are also those who are put off by anything that looks "old". There are plenty of people out there that won't watch a black & white movie, even classics like "Citizen Kane" or "Gone with the Wind", because they are not in color. They let their preference of color film stand in the way of a good-faith judgment of quality.

The "nostalgia" argument is often used as a convenient way of dismissing something old out of hand when one cannot see or understand why others may see merit in it. It's a lot easier to blame "nostalgia" than to take the time and effort try to understand why someone else likes something. It's a lot simpler to label someone as sentimental rather than understand their point of view.

 

[wedgeski]

I doubt there were very many (if any) 3.5 fans miffed at the Paizo marketing. Some didn't like the changes in Pathfinder, but no one was miffed at the marketing anywhere near the same level some 3.x fans were miffed at the 4E marketing.

I wouldn't worry. When it comes to the collective ENW memory, in a year or two this piece of Paizo marketing will similarly have mutated into a scathing attack on Wizards, its staff, their families, all players of 4E, and all their pets... instead of the fun and innocuous jab it actually was.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I doubt there were very many (if any) 3.5 fans miffed at the Paizo marketing. Some didn't like the changes in Pathfinder, but no one was miffed at the marketing anywhere near the same level some 3.x fans were miffed at the 4E marketing.

Now, some 4E fans may have been miffed at the Paizo marketing - I don't know. But then, who can understand THOSE people?

...Because for those that don't like Pathfinder and don't like 4e, they see the tagline as meaning "Pathfinder thrives - and 3.5 suffers."

Just hop on into the D&D legacy forums right here on EN World. Plenty of people there who aren't happy with Pathfinder.

 

[Ranes]

There are plenty of people out there that won't watch a black & white movie, even classics like "Citizen Kane" or "Gone with the Wind", because they are not in color.

Agree wholeheartedly with your point but would just like to note that Ernest Haller and Ray Rennahan won the Oscar for Best Cinematography (Colour) for Gone with the Wind.

 

[Gryph]

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.

I'd be very interested in hearing how your game goes. Saturday I am running the second session of a side trek using the 1e rules for my 4e players.

 

[WheresMyD20]

I think you misunderstood me. (Which is not to say you'll agree with me even if you do understand me.)

I'm not saying that people like the old games because of nostalgia. Heck, if I wanted to run or play in a non-4e D&D game I'd be tempted to go AD&D/OSRIC ahead of 3E.

But what puzzles me is why people care whether its WotC or someone else who's publishing the OSRIC rules, new OSRIC adventures, etc etc. Nostalgia seemed a possible explanation for that.

The publisher matters for a couple of reasons:

First, the size and market power of the publisher will determine how much support the product will receive and whether store owners will stock it.

Secondly, having an established publisher with a decent track record does guarantee some basic level of quality. Remember the old "d20" trademark days? The "d20" trademark became almost worthless since there was so much garbage being published under it with no quality control. It forces players and, more importantly, store owners to sift through the garbage to find the gems.

I think that the success of Pathfinder has been greatly increased by the fact that it has (1) a reputable company behind it with a proven track record, (2) shelf space in game stores, (3) a full product line with plenty of support.

I'd love to see an "old school" game also given that level of support. I can't see it happening, though, unless a fairly sizable publisher is involved, or a designer with a lot of name recognition, or enough of the old school crowd coalesces around a product that it reaches "critical mass".

 

[Erik Mona]

I like this one better...

HM

That is an awesome poster.

--Erik

 

[Dannager]

No, what set up the adversarial situation was WotC attempting to "kill" 3.5.

Again, WotC no more "killed" 3.5 than 3e, 2e, 1e, and all other prior editions of the game were "killed" during their own transitions.

The idea that the creation of a new edition of a game automatically sets up an adversarial relationship is a little ludicrous, don't you think?