Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

[IronWolf]

And this is, as we've been over, a poor way to design a game. You are designing it in such a way that a given character feels underwhelming for months or years, and then feels overwhelming for months or years after that. It is likely that, prior to the point at which the switch happens, the spellcaster's player isn't having as much fun as he might otherwise have, and it is similarly likely that, after the point at which the switch happens, the other members of the party who are not spellcasters are not having as much fun as they might otherwise have.

Bedrockgames *just* stated that he has players that *enjoy* the way wizards start slow and progress later in the game. They seem to have no issue with what you call underwhelming in the early stages (though really, if you consider a wizard underwhelming at low levels you need to reevaluate your early levels spell list).

I've played in the 3.x/PF genre for years now and the "problems" you describe just aren't happening as frequently as you want to paint. I've watched the wizard have a blast from 1st level on up and I've watched the fighter types do the same.

Your statement that spellcasters are not having as much fun as they might otherwise have at the lower levels is simply not true. It might be true for *you*, but it is hardly true for everyone or evidence of a game system issue.

This sort of "low-resolution" game design strikes me as having relatively low levels of appeal to the market at large, and that's why I deride it as an example of poor game design.

Correct - that is why *you* consider it poor game design. Many of us do not see this as an issue and enjoy the game as is. *You* taking issue with it does not condemn the system as flawed globally.

 

[Dannager]

Your analogy is still a poor example to try to make your point. It just muddies the water and is more likely to turn us to talking about how your analogy is not an accurate one or how it doesn't apply.

Or you can just nod and say, "Ah, yes, not being aware of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist!"

See - you say something has a problem. It very well may be a problem for *you*. That does not mean it applies to the majority of people playing the game.

It doesn't have to. I'm saying that people have seen firsthand the ways in which the caster/noncaster paradigm has harmed their game, and that there are enough of these people to have made it quite the issue - in fact, so much of an issue that the industry leader decided to fix that in the next version of their game.

Now, you can say "It's a valid preference!" and I'll agree with you, as far as that goes. But when you say "It's no worse game design than 4e's solution!" that's where I'll disagree with you. I believe, quite strongly, that the behavior that is encouraged by the 3e caster/noncaster paradigm runs counter to behavior that is conducive to happy gaming times, unless you're the one playing the level 15 Wizard.

 

[Dannager]

The marketplace begs to differ.

No, I think the marketplace is just willing to overlook a few flaws if the rest of the package is solid.

Besides, Pathfinder made a concerted effort to rein in the caster/noncaster divide.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And this is, as we've been over, a poor way to design a game. You are designing it in such a way that a given character feels underwhelming for months or years, and then feels overwhelming for months or years after that. It is likely that, prior to the point at which the switch happens, the spellcaster's player isn't having as much fun as he might otherwise have, and it is similarly likely that, after the point at which the switch happens, the other members of the party who are not spellcasters are not having as much fun as they might otherwise have.

This sort of "low-resolution" game design strikes me as having relatively low levels of appeal to the market at large, and that's why I deride it as an example of poor game design.

You are free to believe this but it was how the first 3 editions of d&d were designed and the continued popularity of 3e and pathfinder show lots of people prefer such an approach to the 4e approach. Having pkayed these editions for years i can say i was never bored playing wizards before they got powerful nor was i bore playing other classes after that occured. You can deride it all you want, but I really dont see any evidence to support your position. Sure lots of people hated that approach to balance but it seems a lot of people love it as well. Also if broad appeal is your concern, it seems to me 4e dodn't succeed in achieving broad appeal (which we've argued endlessly i know). In fact most people I run into who didn't transition to 4e or left it cited its approach to balance as their reason.

I think its great that you have an edition you like and yoy know what kind of design works for you. But i think you are forcing your views on balance here. Other people are perfectly happy with other balance approaches. It doesnt mean they are blind, misguided or fond of bad design principles.

 

[Dannager]

You are free to believe this but it was how the first 3 editions of d&d were designed and the continued popularity of 3e and pathfinder show lots of people prefer such an approach to the 4e approach.

No, it doesn't.

It shows that lots of people prefer Pathfinder over 4e. It doesn't show anything about what parts of Pathfinder they prefer over 4e. And, given that Pathfinder actually tried to address this very problem in its design (as much as they felt the system and their fan base would allow), I'd say that Pathfinder's popularity is pretty easily chalked up to things that are not "Oh man they made Wizards so much radder than everyone else!"

 

[BryonD]

No, I think the marketplace is just willing to overlook a few flaws if the rest of the package is solid.

That whole "willful ignorance" thing?





Nobody is claiming there is an immaculate option.
But given a choice the market will always go for the least flaws option.
And, of course, a lot of the market knows how to tell user error from an actual flaw, which makes that tally a better meter than isolated proclamations.

 

[IronWolf]

Or you can just nod and say, "Ah, yes, not being aware of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist!"

Except you are leaping and applying the logic that because *you* say its broken means its a broken system which again simply is not true. You have not even established with agreement that the system is broken and you are leaping to saying people are ignoring it with your analogies.

It doesn't have to. I'm saying that people have seen firsthand the ways in which the caster/noncaster paradigm has harmed their game, and that there are enough of these people to have made it quite the issue - in fact, so much of an issue that the industry leader decided to fix that in the next version of their game.

And there are people that play this *same* game and do not have this problem. People with wizards and fighters in the same party that play from 1st to 20th level.

As for industry leader - that seems to be becoming a topic of debate of just how much of a leader they are. Paizo is obviously being quite successful with Pathfinder - just how much neither you or I have numbers on - but they are obviously being quite successful.

Now, you can say "It's a valid preference!" and I'll agree with you, as far as that goes. But when you say "It's no worse game design than 4e's solution!" that's where I'll disagree with you. I believe, quite strongly, that the behavior that is encouraged by the 3e caster/noncaster paradigm runs counter to behavior that is conducive to happy gaming times, unless you're the one playing the level 15 Wizard.

I don't call 4e broken even though I dislike the system greatly. If I argued from the same stance you took I would be here saying how broken the 4e system is because of the problems I have with it and problems other people I know have with it. But that is unreasonable. Yes, I don't like it for certain problems it has - but that does not mean the system is broken, it just means I don't like it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No, it doesn't.

It shows that lots of people prefer Pathfinder over 4e. It doesn't show anything about what parts of Pathfinder they prefer over 4e. And, given that Pathfinder actually tried to address this very problem in its design (as much as they felt the system and their fan base would allow), I'd say that Pathfinder's popularity is pretty easily chalked up to things that are not "Oh man they made Wizards so much radder than everyone else!"

I think the continued popularity of d20 and the surge in pathfinder both show that the design principle you deride can in fact have broad appeal. Pathfinder did very little to address the wizard issue, as you say because they had to heed their fan base. And as you also point out 4e is tailor made to address this very concern about balance. The fact that a large portion of the gaming community didn't make the switch is a good indication that your balanced approach has less broad appeal than you think. Not to mention the first reason so many people here give for not liking 4e is its approach to balance.

 

[SteveC]

That whole "willful ignorance" thing?





Nobody is claiming there is an immaculate option.
But given a choice the market will always go for the least flaws option.
And, of course, a lot of the market knows how to tell user error from an actual flaw, which makes that tally a better meter than isolated proclamations.

I don't know if I can disagree with this more. I mean how many examples can you find where the "least flaws" is what the market selects? Food, cars, movies, books, television, and, I'll definitely add games to the mix are about perceptions far more than reality. I have to say this sounds an awful lot like "I like Pathfinder, other people around here like it, so it must be the least flawed option," and that's not established in any way, shape, matter or form.

I'm happy that your group doesn't have the problems that have been discussed here, but that hardly makes it anything more than a personal preference. And that's fine and everything, just don't elevate your preference to some sort of "the market has spoken" phenomenon.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I'm happy that your group doesn't have the problems that have been discussed here, but that hardly makes it anything more than a personal preference. And that's fine and everything, just don't elevate your preference to some sort of "the market has spoken" phenomenon.

I'm sorry, but isnt that exactly what Dannager is doing as well?