Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

[Pentius]

In a game, yes, it more or less does. For one, if the people playing the game are happy, there's no need to change anything. For another, WotC isn't playing our game; it could be that the ability is not being used in a game-breaking way in our game.

D-Did you just imply that errata is unnecessary unless it was needed at your table personally? As in, no other table's problems with an issue matter?

 

[Mournblade94]

If you playtest something doesn't that mean you aren't actually using professionals to test the productm which means that errors are going to get through regardless?

The professionals actually CREATE the rules. Then under the oversight of those professionals, the rules are tested.

Subjects participating in a test generally do not get to make the test, whether it is psychology, science, or game design. I thought that was common knowledge. I made the poor assumption thinking it did not have to be said.

Its not really a lowering of standards in terms of how much errata gets produced but a raising up of a standards in terms of balance. Really what makes 4E really fun is that its pretty dam hard to make a bad character because of the parity in powers and abilities. The problem being is that it was always being a few powers were it didn't make any sense to pick anything else but those powers. Also, certain classes were underpowered rules wise which have been improved upon in 4E. As someone wrongly about these changes being all nerfs stated the Warlock actually got a boost in damage output that had been on the rogue for a while.

None of this was a dig on 4e. All of this could be corrected before the games release. The rules are being treated as if they are software. They are not. If I BUY a book from your company I expect it to be REASONABLY complete, well thought out, and the rules issues taken care of previous to publishing. This applies to all publishers, so it is not a dig on 4e.

Above looks like a long list of excuses that all of us ACCEPT and so the company can publish something Half-assed and fix it electronically later.

Uhh... You do know that your Pokemon analagoy is actually far more apt to compare to 3.5E/Pathfinder than to 4E.

I did not make any claim with Pokemon in it so you had to have gotten this quote from someone else. IF it is the analogy of which I am thinking, then no, there is no way the analogy is more aptly compared to Pathfinder than 4e.

 

[Dannager]

In a game, yes, it more or less does. For one, if the people playing the game are happy, there's no need to change anything. For another, WotC isn't playing our game; it could be that the ability is not being used in a game-breaking way in our game.

You seem to have yourself confused with the entire gaming community, much of which disagrees with you.

Again, the fact that you don't see a problem doesn't mean that a problem doesn't exist.

It is ridiculous in the extreme that you don't understand why people don't want the rules of the game they're playing to be constantly changing under them. It is ridiculous in the extreme to not understand the difference between actual errors in the books, stuff that needs to be fixed to play, and things that work, but developers think could be improved. I'm not saying you're wrong for liking it, but you're wrong for dismissing other people's honest feelings on the matter.

It's okay to be miffed by the occasional errata. Your average player probably gets hit with it once or twice, and probably doesn't need to change any of his decisions in order to continue enjoying his character.

What is awful is to not shrug and accept that this small inconvenience (and man, this is a small inconvenience) is the price you pay for having a game system that slowly evolves and improves as time goes on.

So now part of the game is anticipating nerfs. Again, not the type of game I want to play.

Then don't build ridiculous, obviously nerf-vulnerable characters, or if you do, don't whine about the nerfs.

 

[Dannager]

If people were not accepting of the current errata updates, WOTC (and Other game publishers) would be FORCED to ensure they were properly playtested. Even back in the 1st edition days, DRAGON published SOME corrections. It was by no means as rampant as it is today (thanks to technology I understand).

Sorry, it is not too much to ask that the PUBLISHERS put out their NEAR flawless product since they hire professionals.

The product is already near flawless (mechanically) when it's released. You could try to argue otherwise, but you would be wrong.

 

[Dannager]

Yeah, that "had to" part is the thing.

Just strikes me as funny. But it really isn't a big deal.

But even with your reply here the idea of "had to" is still amusing.

I had to change the character twice in order to maintain the same level of ridiculousness I strove for in the original character. If continuing to play a ridiculous character hadn't been a priority, I wouldn't have had to change anything.

I mean, are you reading what I'm actually saying, or are you looking for jabs, here?

 

[Mournblade94]

The product is already near flawless (mechanically) when it's released. You could try to argue otherwise, but you would be wrong.

And it would also be nearly flawless grammatically, yet not a proper finished product.

So I get one part of the book that is flawless (and I would say contrary to what you claim, I would be correct in the assessment it is NOT near flawless with all the errata released) but other parts "still need work." That is not a finished product.

 

[Dannager]

And it would also be nearly flawless grammatically, yet not a proper finished product.

What?

So I get one part of the book that is flawless (and I would say contrary to what you claim, I would be correct in the assessment it is NOT near flawless with all the errata released) but other parts "still need work." That is not a finished product.

Also what?

Oh, and to speed this discussion along, what is your standard for "near flawless", perhaps in terms of percentage of word count?

 

[prosfilaes]

You seem to have yourself confused with the entire gaming community, much of which disagrees with you.

Huh?

Again, the fact that you don't see a problem doesn't mean that a problem doesn't exist.

In my game, if we don't have a problem with something, there isn't a problem.

What is awful is to not shrug and accept that this small inconvenience (and man, this is a small inconvenience) is the price you pay for having a game system that slowly evolves and improves as time goes on.

It's a small inconvenience to you. It's not to someone else.

As for "a game system that slowly evolves and improves as time goes on"... I run an operating system that does that. I once spent four hours trying to log in before realizing that my keyboard had been turned into a Swedish one. I frequently wonder why I don't just update every year or so, instead of dealing with slightly new features and bugs on a daily basis.

We play 3.5 with the Spell Compendium taking precedence over older works. (Presumably so would the Rules Compendium.) It works just fine without a steady stream of errata. For many of us, the price you're charging is way higher than the questionable value of what we're getting.

Then don't build ridiculous, obviously nerf-vulnerable characters, or if you do, don't whine about the nerfs.

So now you have to know what characters are "obviously nerf-vulnerable"? You're punishing rules-mastery, and getting annoyed at people because they don't like being punished.

 

[Dannager]

Huh?

The fact that you personally have not experienced a problem with a given rule does not mean that others have not experienced a problem with that rule. You are not the entire gaming community, and you need to be conscious of the fact that the game may be changed for perfectly legitimate reasons even if you don't understand them because you've never personally encountered the problem.

In my game, if we don't have a problem with something, there isn't a problem.

If a tree falls in the forest and you're not around to hear it, everyone else who is around still hears a crash.

It's a small inconvenience to you. It's not to someone else.

What sort of person considers a (probably minor) change to a (probably minor) game rule for a game about pretending to be magical elves to be anything other than a small inconvenience?

Are you trying to tell me that there are people out there for whom a Ranger nerf has had a significant negative impact on their life?

As for "a game system that slowly evolves and improves as time goes on"... I run an operating system that does that. I once spent four hours trying to log in before realizing that my keyboard had been turned into a Swedish one. I frequently wonder why I don't just update every year or so, instead of dealing with slightly new features and bugs on a daily basis.

Why don't you?

We play 3.5 with the Spell Compendium taking precedence over older works. (Presumably so would the Rules Compendium.) It works just fine without a steady stream of errata. For many of us, the price you're charging is way higher than the questionable value of what we're getting.

The price I'm charging?

So now you have to know what characters are "obviously nerf-vulnerable"? You're punishing rules-mastery, and getting annoyed at people because they don't like being punished.

If you don't realize that a character who ends up getting so heavily nerfed that he has to "respec" nine times over the course of his lifetime to adjust is nerf-vulnerable, you don't have anything resembling rules-mastery.

 

[billd91]

The fact that you personally have not experienced a problem with a given rule does not mean that others have not experienced a problem with that rule. You are not the entire gaming community, and you need to be conscious of the fact that the game may be changed for perfectly legitimate reasons even if you don't understand them because you've never personally encountered the problem.

If something's bothering a gaming group, they can choose to nerf/houserule or incorporate whatever errata they want. But if something isn't giving you trouble in 4e and you use DDI, can you actually refuse to incorporate the errata?

Just as prosfilaes isn't the entire gaming community, neither are those players experiencing trouble. Who wins?