Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

[Dannager]

So much hyperbole coming in the way against people who don't like to play a game with constantly evolving rules.

Gorgoroth, you have zero room to criticize any use of hyperbole in this discussion (real or imagined) after typing this post.

 

[Ettin]

Regardless, if you go to combat, do you really want to be teamed with other soldiers who can't keep up? That's not really elitist

It's like being teamed up at school with weak or fat kids in a group. I used to be the fat kid that nobody wanted to team with. Now I've fixed those problems and optimized myself. I don't see why I shouldn't wince when I see pathetic swordsmen get slaughtered, even more so when they team up with me and aren't pulling their weight. Yes, I am an elitist.

Your words.

 

[Gorgoroth]

ok

"I'm sure the people who bought the books from them must have felt the same way."

Ohhh, they will be. They will be. When they actually try to make a character using those books and bring them to a local gaming group, just to find out the character isn't valid. I'm sure they will start to.

Our DM only ever reads the Rules Compendium.

Re: about critizing the use of hyperbole, I didn't bring it up, I was merely pointing out other people's hypocrisy for them putting words down my throat. As for my own foibles, I can reconnoitre them and accept them, because I'm a man. Can you? This entire thread is about 4e's problems, and why it's circling the drain (firing people left right and center is not a good sign). At this point, I really don't care what wizards does.

I expect them to screw up more things than they fix with each new errata. I wish it weren't the case, but I'm certainly not alone and if 4e blinker-wearing zealot edition defenders can't see 4e is inferior to Pathfinder, the title of this thread nor any post therein will not convince them otherwise.

I didn't invent the thread, but after being burned by 4e and wizards too many times, my good will has run out and to heck with people who think their opinions are better than mine. And yes, 2nd ed was far, far, far superior to 4e. I had more fun and memorable battles and stories in our AD&D games than I've ever seen in 4e.

Pathfinder comes a close second to my 2e experience, and that's only after playing it for THREE MONTHS. My AD&D PHB has seen more use than any other book I've ever owned, bar none. Can you say the same about your 4e PHB? Do you think you will be playing 4e in 20 years from now? Seriously, now. Get real.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

This entire thread is about 4e's problems, and why it's circling the drain (firing people left right and center is not a good sign).

Actually, up until a few pages ago when edition zealots on all sides hopped in, this thread was about Paizo's and WotC's relative performance from a business perspective.

 

[Dannager]

Ohhh, they will be. They will be. When they actually try to make a character using those books and bring them to a local gaming group, just to find out the character isn't valid. I'm sure they will start to.

No, I'm sure the DM will say something along the lines of "Oh, no worries, play with your character as-is this session and then after we finish the game I'll help you plug it into the Character Builder so that we can make sure it's up-to-date. I'm glad you took the time to read and understand the game's rules!"

That is, if he's anything like a decent DM.

Re: about critizing the use of hyperbole, I didn't bring it up, I was merely pointing out other people's hypocrisy for them putting words down my throat. As for my own foibles, I can reconnoitre them and accept them, because I'm a man. Can you?

This is perhaps the oddest thing I've heard all day.

This entire thread is about 4e's problems, and why it's circling the drain (firing people left right and center is not a good sign).

No, this entire thread is about Paizo's well-deserved success. I'm not sure why you've decided to make it about some imagined portents of doom on WotC's part, but you're pretty far off base.

And if you're familiar with WotC, you know that they let people go every year - it doesn't reflect at all on their level of success. This last year they actually skipped the round of December layoffs, if I recall correctly.

Hardly left, right, and center.

What reason can you give me to not lump you into the Perpetual Internet Doomsayers club?

At this point, I really don't care what wizards does.

Except that, clearly, you do.

I expect them to screw up more things than they fix with each new errata.

I'm afraid that may be another example of unreasonable expectations on your part.

I wish it weren't the case, but I'm certainly not alone and if 4e blinker-wearing zealot edition defenders can't see 4e is inferior to Pathfinder,

This line, right here, has cost you more credibility with me - and likely with much of this forum's readership - than anything you have said over the course of your participation in this thread.

And that's saying a lot.

Also, blinders.

I didn't invent the thread, but after being burned by 4e and wizards too many times, my good will has run out and to heck with people who think their opinions are better than mine.

Oh good lord.

My AD&D PHB has seen more use than any other book I've ever owned, bar none.

I'm sure it feels very loved.

Can you say the same about your 4e PHB?

No.

Then again, I've only owned it for three years.

You're coming across as a little...off, here.

Do you think you will be playing 4e in 20 years from now?

No. In all likelihood, I will be playing whatever the current supported edition of the game is.

Of course, I'm not playing AD&D 2e currently, so I don't think you really have much of a point.

Seriously, now. Get real.

Seriously.

 

[prosfilaes]

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

So you admit that much of the gaming community agrees with me? Sure, I'll admit that some people want constant errata, but the point is the others aren't stupid; it's an entirely reasonable position to want to play a stable game, suboptimal though it may be, instead of a game that is constantly changing.

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.

A tabletop RPG is not a MMORPG. It's not fundamentally important that we all use the same rules. Nor does or can WotC address all the problems in every person's game, because each person will have different problems.

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?

If the game is unimportant, then why is ridiculous to quit for any reason or none? Certainly a small inconvenience will cause me to make changes in my life about unimportant things.

In any case, it's not a rule, it's the continuous change in rules, making everything you know potentially obsolete.

Why don't you?

I don't change my operating system because it's interesting to see what's changing and keep up with the cutting edge. But I understand why people might want their computer to actually work, consistently and in the same way. I'm a computer geek; some people actually just use the darn things.

If someone wants to play a constantly changing beta version of D&D, that's fine. But there's some people who don't.

The price I'm charging?

Yeah, "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." You're offering as a reward what many people don't want, a game that continually changes under their feet.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

[General W. Monger]Please don't cry little girls, it makes my knees hurt.[/General W. Monger]

We get the point - you two don't agree. Let's move on.

Is WotC's pulling back on their print release schedule a good thing?

I think that it is, that WotC had been saturating their market, and that slowing down will allow some breathing room so that products in the same lines won't be competing with each other.

Thoughts, agreements, or disagreements?

The Auld Grump, let us at least have a structured argument....

 

[Dannager]

So you admit that much of the gaming community agrees with me?

Absolutely.

Sure, I'll admit that some people want constant errata, but the point is the others aren't stupid; it's an entirely reasonable position to want to play a stable game, suboptimal though it may be, instead of a game that is constantly changing.

It is, and it's eminently reasonable to want to play a perfect game. But D&D is not perfect, and the inconvenience that errata imposes is about as minor as an inconvenience can be.

I hate to draw MMO comparisons, but in this case it's apt - online games are one of the few examples we have of "living" games. When a game like WoW receives a patch - especially a balance patch - there are those who throw absolute fits. Their character was nerfed, their build is broken, their exploit is gone. But they continue to provide these balance patches anyway.

Why?

Because they improve the game. Because the majority of players are, on the whole, happy that their game is being improved. Because those who decide to ragequit over a balance fix were going to ragequit over something eventually anyway, and the game is better off getting rid of them sooner than later.

So yes, it's reasonable to want to play a stable game. It's also reasonable to expect that those who would rather play a stable game take a breath and come to terms with the idea of rules updates, because on the whole they do more good than harm.

A tabletop RPG is not a MMORPG. It's not fundamentally important that we all use the same rules.

Except when it is important, such as in organized play.

But using all the same rules isn't the point. After all, when 4e came out everyone was using identical sets of rules, too. The point is that the game can be made better.

Nor does or can WotC address all the problems in every person's game, because each person will have different problems.

No, but they try to address the ones that they feel are reasonable to address, with special attention paid to rules that receive more complaints than others.

If the game is unimportant, then why is ridiculous to quit for any reason or none? Certainly a small inconvenience will cause me to make changes in my life about unimportant things.

I'm saying that the scale of inconvenience is so minor as to make it weird to stop playing a game that you would otherwise enjoy over it.

I mean, if it's a straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back thing (like in Gorgoroth's case), then that's no big deal. You would have eventually quit anyway.

In any case, it's not a rule, it's the continuous change in rules, making everything you know potentially obsolete.

The difference between practice and potential is important, here.

I don't change my operating system because it's interesting to see what's changing and keep up with the cutting edge. But I understand why people might want their computer to actually work, consistently and in the same way. I'm a computer geek; some people actually just use the darn things.

And it's this mentality which has resulted in IE6's stubborn refusal to die a long-overdue death, which has in turn hampered the entire field of web development.

If someone wants to play a constantly changing beta version of D&D, that's fine. But there's some people who don't.

"Constantly changing" and "beta" are not one and the same.

You're offering as a reward what many people don't want, a game that continually changes under their feet.

No, I'm offering that as a reward to the people who do want it, and telling the people who find it inconvenient that it's time to accept it, stop complaining over something so minor that is not going to change, and move on.

 

[Dannager]

Is WotC's pulling back on their print release schedule a good thing?

It's got its pros and cons.

If it means that the market can catch up to the released products, that's great, and if it means that WotC can dedicate some of those resources to shoring up thin portions of the game in the interim, even greater.

 

[Dark Mistress]

[General W. Monger]Please don't cry little girls, it makes my knees hurt.[/General W. Monger]

We get the point - you two don't agree. Let's move on.

Is WotC's pulling back on their print release schedule a good thing?

I think that it is, that WotC had been saturating their market, and that slowing down will allow some breathing room so that products in the same lines won't be competing with each other.

Thoughts, agreements, or disagreements?

The Auld Grump, let us at least have a structured argument....

Maybe or maybe not. I think it depends how much they focus on just using the DDI for new product and how far away from print they get. The problem with going mostly or totally into the DDI would be getting new players. 4e Encounters helps a lot in that regard, but due to how it is run. It will mostly draw in people who already play in RPG's, since they are typically run at game shops and the like.

The biggest downside to the focus on the DDI is less exposure to the general market to attract in new gamers. The boxed set was suppose to help in that regard but I personally think it flopped for what it was made for having seen it. I have hopes the new Paizo Pathfinder box set will work well for attracting and teaching new gamers but will see.

Though WotC making more boardgames that tie into DnD might work well in that regard so it might end up being a good strat, only time will tell. Since once a gamer gets a DDI account books are less important, so as long as WotC manages to keep good gateways for existing gamers and new gamers to draw them to the DDI eventually. Then having a lot of books on shelves or not I doubt will have much effect one way or the other.