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

[Dannager]

You also have to consider that it's possible -had PF not been created- that some of those people who didn't like 4E would have gone to a different gaming system which is actively supported.

You're right, there were other options, and more may have sprung up had Paizo not gone ahead with Pathfinder. I don't think there was another company that could have done as well with releasing a new edition as Paizo, though. They were in the perfect position. For a lot of people who held more loyalty to Paizo than WotC and who liked 3e more than 4e, the PFRPG was a dream come true.

 

[Dannager]

My problem was the way it felt as I played 4e. It felt off to me. And it could have been because of 8 years of 3e and 10+ years of the other systems. I don't like the play of it for me it is geared for a younger faster want to do as many neat things as I can in an encounter. And I'm an old schooler who would rather role-play than roll-play.

Let's be careful, here. Wanting your encounters to be chock full of neat things does not a "roll-player" make.

 

[pawsplay]

You're right, there were other options, and more may have sprung up had Paizo not gone ahead with Pathfinder. I don't think there was another company that could have done as well with releasing a new edition as Paizo, though. They were in the perfect position. For a lot of people who held more loyalty to Paizo than WotC and who liked 3e more than 4e, the PFRPG was a dream come true.

More perfect than Mongoose, who have published the PHB and DMG before? More perfect than Super Genius Games, with their amazing alien intellects?

Again, and I hate to belabor this, I don't own any Paizo products other than the Pathfinder RPG and some maps. No modules, no campaign setting, no critical hit decks, no nothing. I don't think I am unusual in this regard; probably in a minority, but not unusual.

I like 3.5. I like games that are in print. I like the revised skill system. Therefore, Pathfinder.

 

[HolyMan]

Let's be careful, here. Wanting your encounters to be chock full of neat things does not a "roll-player" make.

Not sure I understand you there. I was referring to what a character could do in an encounter, not the encounter itself.

And 4e is a heavy roll-play game. 90+% of the powers have you rolling this and or that.

What threw me off the most is when I tried to make a pacifist healer and had to take an attack power. There was no way around it. No way to make the character I wanted to play. Oh and clerics don't start off with shield prof. very un-D&Dish.

HM

 

[Dannager]

And 4e is a heavy roll-play game. 90+% of the powers have you rolling this and or that.

As opposed to what you normally do in D&D combat, where rolling is a rarity?

 

[BryonD]

I think we must be talking about two completely different groups of people, then.

I take it this is your official correction to your prior statement about how I had claimed an absolute at that was what you were challenging.

My posts are referring to the things that matter to people who might not like the game of 4e, overall, but who see the promise of active support as a sufficient enough draw to perhaps choose 4e (despite any rules-related distaste) over an edition that is not currently supported. I contend that this segment of the gaming population is significant. I further contend that Paizo's publication of an actively supported RPG has prevented this segment of the gaming population from having to make the difficult choice posed here - instead, they get their edition of choice (mostly) and have it actively supported. The crux of my argument is, therefore, that examining the level of current support the various editions/games out there receive is important to having a full understanding of why people are playing the games they are playing.

It looks like no one is making the argument that everyone playing Pathfinder is playing it solely because they dislike 4e, and no one is making the argument that everyone playing Pathfinder is playing it solely because it is a currently-supported game. I'm just trying to caution against the idea that support doesn't factor into a person's mental calculus when deciding on two less-than-ideal choices.

So you invent the idea that we need to be cautioned and decree that we didn't already know that and then proceed to focus your entire response on this double straw man.

Cool.

I am 100% certain you could go find some John Doe who left 4E because a supported 3E system was available.

Your claim of "significant" is noted, but I see no evidence to actually support it.

In the mean time, while you were spending all your energy beating the straw man, my initial point is still standing right over there untouched.

Originally Posted by BryonD
People are not choosing 3E over 4E because Paizo made Pathfinder.
Paizo made Pathfinder because it became very clear that people wanted to choose 3E over 4E.

On day PF-1 nobody other than Paizo insiders knew that Paizo would be providing on-going support for 3E. And yet a huge number of people were already rejecting 4E and choosing to play 3E or some close cousin despite the fact that no on-going published support existed.

So Paizo thinks, we know our APs are our company's life blood.
We can either:
-Start supporting the current edition of D&D, published by WotC and carrying the D&D brand name on it. or
-Publish the 3E rules ourselves, lose the D&D brand name recognition and the ability to be on the marketing coat tails of a WotC and offer a decade old, freely available system up against the new shiny (which, btw, will be BRAND NEW on shelves within a few months of us making this choice)

Why in the world would they make the second choice? The answer is because it was highly obvious to anyone paying attention that a very significant chunk of the fan base was not interested in 4E and already intended to play 3E despite the fact that there was no on-going support for it.

So, on day PF-1:
-number of non-Paizo-insider people rejecting 4E for 3E with no support: significant enough that Paizo bet the farm on them
-number of non-Paizo-insider people rejecting 4E for 3E because PF existed: zero. (I hope we can agree on that on THAT date, the zero people in that group you have referenced qualifies as "not significant")

That right there establishes the point I made and you challenged. Paizo's choice was not made in today's marketplace. It was made (or at least officially announced) in March 2008. In March 2008, Paizo made Pathfinder because it became very clear that people wanted to choose 3E over 4E.

Yeah, there were other reasons as well. I don't dispute that. But, remove this one reason, remove the reality of a strong pre-existing market base and all the other reasons are not going to be enough for them to throw their livings at it.

So, are there *some* people now in the other group to which you speak? I'm sure there are. Are their numbers significant? No. At least not on any scale that wouldn't require adding a new word to the english language to describe the high level of relevance of the "4E sucks/I'm done with 4E" numbers.

But, at least you have retracted your claim that I made an absolute. I appreciate that.

 

[Dannager]

That right there establishes the point I made and you challenged. Paizo's choice was not made in today's marketplace. It was made (or at least officially announced) in March 2008. In March 2008, Paizo made Pathfinder because it became very clear that people wanted to choose 3E over 4E.

This would be your point, if your point had made use of the past tense, but it didn't (at least, the part I took exception to didn't). That's why I agreed with the second half of your argument - that Paizo felt comfortable making PFRPG because it was clear that there were still people who wanted to play 3e or some variation thereof. But I disagreed with the first half of your argument, I explained why, I clarified myself, and reached what I feel is a very reasonable position to take. You used the present tense in the first half of your argument, and I assumed that to mean that you were talking about the current state of the hobby. If that is not what you intended by your use of the present tense, I apologize.

At this point, however, I don't think there's much more to be discussed regarding people playing 3e/PF/4e. We should move onto a discussion where we do not find ourselves getting bogged down in disagreements stemming from writing tenses.

 

[BryonD]

This would be your point, if your point had made use of the past tense, but it didn't (at least, the part I took exception to didn't). That's why I agreed with the second half of your argument - that Paizo felt comfortable making PFRPG because it was clear that there were still people who wanted to play 3e or some variation thereof.

You are desperately splitting hairs now. I don't think it could be any more obvious that the two statements were presented as a set.

I'll also point out that it is amusing that you have gone to plan B, since the "absolute" thing fell through.

At this point, however, I don't think there's much more to be discussed regarding people playing 3e/PF/4e. We should move onto a discussion where we do not find ourselves getting bogged down in disagreements stemming from writing tenses.

"We" don't find ourselves bogged down in anything.

The position you are trying to defend is stuck clinging to a combination of word games and ignoring other points altogether.

You now clearly agree that in the past there was such a major split in the market that Paizo bet their livelihood on it. So let's focus on the present and remove all questions of tense from the matter.

Are you claiming that the condition that existed on the day 4E was released would have gone away if PF did not exist? I guess you could claim that. But the evidence to support that is seriously lacking.

Pathfinder and 4E exist in the same marketplace. So obviously, like any competing products they cut into each others share. But that is a mutual thing, and the "best" product wins*. The significant share of the marketplace who didn't like 4E in the first place is solely a result of 4E. And, as I predicted three years ago, the rapid burnout rate of 4E which is now in the marketplace is also solely a function of 4E. PF has nothing to do with these key items.

Sure, the option of pathfinder adds some more grains on the scale. But you can not blame those grains for tipping the scale when the scale was tipped long before the grains were placed there and at no point would have ever tipped back the other way without them.

And, bottom line, above and beyond the obvious connection between my two statements, this reality of the scale being tipped on its own all along makes your tense hair splitting irrelevant.



* - Understanding that "best" has nothing to do with individual tastes, and sometimes even has nothing to do with highest quality (VHS, for example). "Best" in this context simply means a combination of product, marketing, and price to gain the best share.

 

[BryonD]

The funny thing is, I'd *LOVE* to say that PF is 4E's problem.

"Yeah, dude, Pathfinder is kicking 4E's butt. Obviously Pathfinder is awesome and 4E can't handle it as a marketplace competitor."

But I can't give PF credit for 4E's self-inflicted wounds any more than you can blame PF for 4E's self-inflicted wounds.

 

[Dannager]

You are desperately splitting hairs now. I don't think it could be any more obvious that the two statements were presented as a set.

I'll also point out that it is amusing that you have gone to plan B, since the "absolute" thing fell through.

This has clearly stopped being a discussion for you and started in on something personal, so I'm going to remove myself from this.

Nice chatting with you.