Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6236850" data-attributes="member: 2525">Right.  So, our two perceptions cancel each other out as they are subjective opposites.  What we are left with is objective fact that one company published way more material than the other company, when comparing the last two years of Pathfinder to any two years of 4e.I said it was a guess, not the basis of my position.  What false accusation, or accusation at all? All I said was, "Did you read...", and "If you did not read them, then...".  No accusation involved.OK, so we both agree those were good books.  So, why did you say WOTC was just churning out stuff to meet deadlines, and publishing out books not worthy of being hardbacks?If you take the last two years of 4e material that was actually produced (which is "up until Summer 2012, or whatever the date was), and compare it to the last two years of Pathfinder material that was actually produced,(which is "up until now") you will come to the same result.  Pathfinder has been churning out way more material in the past two years than even the peak two years of 4e.  In fact, I suspect it is more than the peak two years of WOTC 3e material.  As I mentioned earlier, someone crunched the numbers and found it was close to the peak years of TSR.Whether or not it is hardback is meaningless to me, and I think to many people.  You are the only person I've ever even seen mention this argument about hardbacks equating somehow with the gravitas of the book.  It's nonsensical to me, given the nature of the line.  WOTC went with hardbacks for their entire 4e line, with the exception of their Essentials experiment.  They went with hardbacks for most of 3.5 as well.  It's just a binding direction they chose, probably for shelf space reasons and uniformity, and it had nothing to do with the content.Again, none of this is making a whit of difference to me, and you have yet to explain why it makes any difference to you.  Why does it matter, in terms of content? I assume the words were just as important regardless of how the binding was done.  The only connections I can see to content are page count, and maybe maps.  Why do you keep mentioning it like it's obvious to everyone why the heck you think this is an important issue?WHY do you think this?  Where does this come from? Who else, other than you, has ever said anything like this? How is it relevant given WOTC chose that as their base format for everything? Why do you think others share this perception? And, given that the overwhelming bulk of what Paizo publishes is softcover, are you arguing the bulk of what they publish lacks gravitas? It's just the format they chose, not a commentary on content quality.This paragraph above, does not in any way follow to this paragraph below...How does book weight, page count, and word count density, equate with quality over quantity?  It's the opposite! If the page count is lower, if the word count is less dense, then THE QUANTITY IS LESS NOT MORE.  Your argument, if it actually made sense (and I don't think it does) would tend to support the quality being HIGHER for the WOTC books, and LOWER for the Pathfinder books, as the Pathfinder books were spamming more words into it, while the WOTC books were getting the job done with less quantity of words and easier reading (due to more white space) which goes to quality of the product itself (as easier reading means higher quality experience).  But really I think this is all nonsense anyway.  On any measure, be it product count, page count, word count, whatever, I think it's obvious Pathfinder has had more "glut" than 4e, if you take the last two years of Pathfinder and compare it to any two year period of 4e.  There is no rational definition of "glut" which only applies to hardcover vs. softcover books - glut refers to quantity of content, or quantity of books, and not quantity of just one particular binding of books.  Perception or not, it's inherent to the definition of the word, which simply cannot be changed due to your perception.</blockquote>

Verification