Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder: Is it evidence that new editions don't need to be that different?

[AllisterH]

Actually that raises a question about how many rulebooks each edition released per year, versus how many primarily fluff supplements (setting specific or otherwise) were released for each edition. My experience is a bit too brief to make a call on the top since I missed 1e and 2e entirely.

Is 4e producing a much higher number of crunch-heavy rulebooks versus previous editions? Or is it just my perception that it is?

Martial Power, Arcane Power, Divine Power, Monster Manual 2, Adventurer Vault 1 & 2 and PHB 2 are all crunch heavy supplements. (If you have DDI, don't bother buying it)

Open Grave, Draconomicon, DMG1, Manual of the Planes, Eberron and Forgotten Realms player guide are mostly fluff but have interesting crunch for most people (races and classes)I guess (The first 4 are all definite DM buys while the latter two are definite player buys even if you have DDI IMO)

Campaign Guides are all fluff.

 

[Nikosandros]

It would take the best features from all editions

One problem with your plan, is that of selecting the best features... this is something that's highly subjective.

 

[DaveMage]

One problem with your plan, is that of selecting the best features... this is something that's highly subjective.

True - and you would never please everyone. But the first questions I would ask for each edition are:

What is the initial appeal of the game that hooks players in?
Why do people continue to play?
Why do people stop playing?

I think the answers to these questions will go a long way towards designing a game that is better for the long term.

For example, one of the complaints leveled at 3E and 4E as to why people stop playing is that combat takes too long. The new edition should probably fix that issue - or at least provide alternatives for fast combat. (Hence the "modular" approach.)

 

[Jack99]

That's one way of looking at it. Another one would be that, unless you have the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide, some parts of your Adventurer's Vault 2 will be completely useless to you.

So you would rather have zero support for anything released? Or is it that you would only have specific support. Ie, a swordmage book, then a seperate book with swordmage items, then a new book with more swordmage powers?

 

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Shemeska View Post
Actually that raises a question about how many rulebooks each edition released per year, versus how many primarily fluff supplements (setting specific or otherwise) were released for each edition. My experience is a bit too brief to make a call on the top since I missed 1e and 2e entirely.

Is 4e producing a much higher number of crunch-heavy rulebooks versus previous editions? Or is it just my perception that it is?

Heh, one of the more common complaints about 3e, particularly in the early days was that it was all crunch and no fluff.

The wheel just keeps on turning no?

A Blast from 2005

 

[Obryn]

That's one way of looking at it. Another one would be that, unless you have the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide, some parts of your Adventurer's Vault 2 will be completely useless to you.

And a third way of looking at it is that anyone with a DDI subscription can use all of the above, for the price of about two books, and never worry about it again.

the core book(s) should have all the rules content needed to play the game, which is certainly not what happens with 4e.

And yet somehow we managed to play the game before any supplements came out. It's simply astonishing that tens of thousands of gamers managed such an impossible feat.

-O

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I don't think D&D needs to appeal to everybody. I think 3E's attempt to appeal to everyone either through its own rules or the attached OGL created the impression that it was D&D's job to appeal to every facet of the RPG hobby. I see a lot of people in this thread feeling that D&D should appeal specifically to themselves, on their terms.

 

[billd91]

I see a lot of people in this thread feeling that D&D should appeal specifically to themselves, on their terms.

Isn't that the conceit of every customer, particularly every on-going customer who happened to feel that a previous version of something did in fact appeal to themselves?

 

[Betote]

So you would rather have zero support for anything released? Or is it that you would only have specific support. Ie, a swordmage book, then a seperate book with swordmage items, then a new book with more swordmage powers?

I prefer self-contained rules, yes. I also know there are people who prefer otherwise, and that's why I said "another way to look at it" and not "the right way to look at it"

As I have already stated, my ideal situation is one book with all the rules (which is the way my favorite games work: Call of Cthulhu, Pathfinder and Rules Cyclopedia D&D). Not having that, I'd choose the "small packages" model (as D&D 3.x) over the "everything intertwines" of 4e.

Please note the "I". I'm aware that there are other ways and that they seem to be pretty successful, even more than the ones I prefer. Luckily, we all can have what we want.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Isn't that the conceit of every customer, particularly every on-going customer who happened to feel that a previous version of something did in fact appeal to themselves?

I was just pointing out a theoretical correlation between 3E's attempt at appealing to as many people as possible with the concept of people feeling that D&D ought to try to appeal to as many people as possible, including themselves. Before 3E, D&D had its own core audience and large portions of RPG tastes weren't actively catered to by TSR and the game itself, and nobody seemed to feel entitled to D&D catering to them. 4E chose to take a step back(or several steps) from 3E's attempt at all-inclusiveness, and some people were inevitably going to be left out by this.

I just wonder if people really do have a right to have D&D cater to their tastes and everyone elses, or if this is just a case of being self-centered.