Nice to see the diehard 4E defenders firmly in denial. No one could possibly sell as much or more rpg books than WotC. It's impossible. Face it. Paizo is having tremendous success with Pathfinder even though they can't put the D&D label on their products.
Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D
- Thread starter Kzach
- Start date
- Status
Nice to see the diehard 4E defenders firmly in denial. No one could possibly sell as much or more rpg books than WotC. It's impossible. Face it. Paizo is having tremendous success with Pathfinder even though they can't put the D&D label on their products.
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Heh, let's admit it though - some of us 3.X/Pathfinder fans were just as bad, back when folks were downplaying 3.X and Pathfinder and up playing 4e.
Now Paizo is doing well, and WotC may be in a slump, but some of the WotC fans still remember our whinging. I never noticed it much, but I have it on authority that I will accept that it was a problem. Most likely, I just stayed out of 4e threads, and never saw the lumbering Grognardian Trolls descending from their snow covered hills, warclubs at the ready. (Sorry, I just like that image.
)Herschel was not the worst of the 4e edition warriors by any means, and actually had a point about the Paizo subscriptions. Unlike the numbers for the DDi, Paizo can count them as book sales. It does change the numbers.
Admitting that he was labeling the pro-Paizo folks on this thread as clueless and trolls without reading the thread... not so much.
Them Youngerlander Trolls, charging up the talus covered slopes, warclubs at the ready, defending their homelands as the Grognardian Trolls claim the upper valleys....The Auld Grump, shaking his warclub at an uncaring sky....
MortonStromgal
First Post
This thread pretty much follows my experience. I regularly play with 3 different D&D groups (with some overlap of a couple players). There are 19 of us total, we all bought the 3 core 4e books when it came out. All of us played for a month when one group switch back to 3.5, about 4 months later another group went back to 3.5. The last group played for a year and a half then went to Pathfinder. One of the 3.5 groups moved to Pathfinder as well. Between the 3 groups we have 5 players that still are interested in 4e. 3 of us did not play in the year an a half 4e game and ONLY got interested in 4e again because of Essentials. So the first few 4e books sold out makes sense to me and it also makes sense to me that 4e is fading with a minor bump from Essentials while Pathfinder is growing.
Pentius
First Post
It's kinda funny for me, seeing people with this experience, because mine was so different. When 4e rolled out, my group switched over because our DM wanted to give it a shot. I was very much against the idea, and loudly hated 4e whenever I got the chance(I was kind of a jerk about it, but I was also not on any forums for it, so the reach of my warclub was short). I spent a couple weeks trying to convince the group to go back, before I began to realize that 4e had fixed a number of problems I was barely aware of when we played 3.5, but were glaring and irreconcilable once I had seen them. Then I spent a few months trying to get my group to try different systems, and we did try a few, but nothing really suited me as well as 4e by that point. Session by session, alternate system by alternate system, my opinion slowly changed:
-"I hate this game!"
-"I hate this game, except that Fighters are finally cool!"
-"I hate this game, except for the things that are good about it!"
-"It's okay, I GUESS."(heavy sarcasm)
-"It's okay, I guess."(no sarcasm)
-"Yeah, okay, I like this game."
-"Why did I waste a year hating this game?"
TheAuldGrump
First Post
It may just come down to whether folks saw the 'problems' as actual problems or not.
For some of us, those weren't problems, they were features, or, at worst, quirks. So we see a lot of the changes as fixing things that weren't broken in the first place.
Others see those 'features' and 'quirks' as problems, and can't understand why folks are complaining when those problems have been fixed.
And there are the folks who decided, after trying 4e, that those problems were features after all, and that 4e has its own raft offeatures problems.)
As well, there are the folks who see the two editions as completely separate games, and play both. But what the Hell do they know? (Joking, just to make sure folks realize it.)
The Auld Grump, of the 'features, not problems' crowd.
For some of us, those weren't problems, they were features, or, at worst, quirks. So we see a lot of the changes as fixing things that weren't broken in the first place.
Others see those 'features' and 'quirks' as problems, and can't understand why folks are complaining when those problems have been fixed.
And there are the folks who decided, after trying 4e, that those problems were features after all, and that 4e has its own raft of
As well, there are the folks who see the two editions as completely separate games, and play both. But what the Hell do they know?
(Joking, just to make sure folks realize it.)The Auld Grump, of the 'features, not problems' crowd.
Pentius
First Post
It may just come down to whether folks saw the 'problems' as actual problems or not.
For some of us, those weren't problems, they were features, or, at worst, quirks. So we see a lot of the changes as fixing things that weren't broken in the first place.
Others see those 'features' and 'quirks' as problems, and can't understand why folks are complaining when those problems have been fixed.
And there are the folks who decided, after trying 4e, that those problems were features after all, and that 4e has its own raft offeaturesproblems.)
As well, there are the folks who see the two editions as completely separate games, and play both. But what the Hell do they know?
The Auld Grump, of the 'features, not problems' crowd.
Oh, definitely. I'm quite aware that many of the things I saw as problems in 3.5 are things its fans think of as features, and that many of the things I love about 4e are considered its flaws by those same 3.5 fans. I'm quite willing to play and let play, as it were. A lot of times I can't actually wrap my mind around why other people have the preferences they do, but I've gotten old enough to realize that "things I don't personally enjoy" and "things that are objectively bad" are two different categories.
Crap, must spread experience around before I can give it to The Auld Grump.
But he is completely spot on. For a game where the enjoyment that one gets out of it is not only based on the game, but equally on the people you are playing it with as well as what you expect from it, for anyone to expect what they find awesome/meh/crappy about a particular system to match everyone else's feelings is either the height of arrogance or stupidity.
But he is completely spot on. For a game where the enjoyment that one gets out of it is not only based on the game, but equally on the people you are playing it with as well as what you expect from it, for anyone to expect what they find awesome/meh/crappy about a particular system to match everyone else's feelings is either the height of arrogance or stupidity.
Mournblade94
Hero
Generally when the prefix un is used it means 'not' (the word) or a reversal of (the word) it was added too.
Dannager
First Post
And thus I left the point unaddressed.
If I'd chosen to address it, I would have argued along the lines that 4e is a really popular game system. But it struck me as a pointless dig at 4e that was plainly wrong on its face, so I figured it'd be better to just let the comment flop around on its own.
Also, this was, like, two and a half weeks ago.
BryonD
Hero
And if you had I would have agreed. And still stuck to my point that it would be making a hell of a lot more money if it was as popular as the flagship brand in RPGs *can* be.
- Status
Similar Threads
