Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="radferth" data-source="post: 5270525" data-attributes="member: 5791">I would tend to agree that WotC is gearing 4e toward folks who like to make their own adventures, while Paizo is out to sell to folks who like adventure paths.&nbsp; (Indeed, the impetus for creating Pathfinder was that they wanted to keep on selling adventure paths, and felt they needed an in-print game system to do so).&nbsp; However, this in not the only preference in play.&nbsp; The systems are different enough that many (most?) folks have a strong preference there as well.&nbsp; Paizo has people who like adventure paths and like 3.x covered, and WotC has folks who like 4e and like to make their own adventures covered.&nbsp; No one in particular is support 3.x fans who like to homebrew, but there is so much out there already, this isn't a big deal.&nbsp; Folks who like the 4e system, but who would like some high-quality, dead-tree adventures are out of luck.&nbsp; Please, someone prove me wrong on my last point and point me at some good 4e adventures.&nbsp; There was one 3pp 4e adventures I played a year ago that was quite good, I don't know the name or who published.&nbsp; We fought a lot of evil dwarves.&nbsp; All other 4e adventures I have read, played, or heard of from friends have been quite lacking.To circle back to the OP.&nbsp; I'd say Paizo is trying sell us modules, and they've got some rules to go with those.&nbsp; WotC is trying to sell us rules, and they've got some modules we can use if we want.&nbsp; If this were some sort formal competition, I'd give Paizo higher marks, because I like their rules better than WotC's modules.&nbsp; WotC: you got a lot of my money in 3.x days, because there were a lot of cool modules I could use your rules on.&nbsp; That's not the case now.&nbsp; If you want me to keep a DDI subscription and buy the occasional rule book, get some better adventures in circulation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="radferth, post: 5270525, member: 5791"] I would tend to agree that WotC is gearing 4e toward folks who like to make their own adventures, while Paizo is out to sell to folks who like adventure paths. (Indeed, the impetus for creating Pathfinder was that they wanted to keep on selling adventure paths, and felt they needed an in-print game system to do so). However, this in not the only preference in play. The systems are different enough that many (most?) folks have a strong preference there as well. Paizo has people who like adventure paths and like 3.x covered, and WotC has folks who like 4e and like to make their own adventures covered. No one in particular is support 3.x fans who like to homebrew, but there is so much out there already, this isn't a big deal. Folks who like the 4e system, but who would like some high-quality, dead-tree adventures are out of luck. Please, someone prove me wrong on my last point and point me at some good 4e adventures. There was one 3pp 4e adventures I played a year ago that was quite good, I don't know the name or who published. We fought a lot of evil dwarves. All other 4e adventures I have read, played, or heard of from friends have been quite lacking. To circle back to the OP. I'd say Paizo is trying sell us modules, and they've got some rules to go with those. WotC is trying to sell us rules, and they've got some modules we can use if we want. If this were some sort formal competition, I'd give Paizo higher marks, because I like their rules better than WotC's modules. WotC: you got a lot of my money in 3.x days, because there were a lot of cool modules I could use your rules on. That's not the case now. If you want me to keep a DDI subscription and buy the occasional rule book, get some better adventures in circulation. [/QUOTE]

Verification