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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 5702898" data-attributes="member: 85870">So with the all-but-certain conventional wisdom being that Monte Cook is working on 5e, here's the really interesting question that I haven't seen discussed: If WotC had essentially made 4e what Pathfinder is now, how different would the RPG landscape look? Would many of the current 4e fans turned their noses up at it and gone back to playing retroclones/Runequest/HERO/anything else? Or would it have "fixed" enough of the problems with 3.x to bring some of them back? Would it be as revered among 3.x-ers as Pathfinder is, or would it be viewed as "more of the same money-grabbing" by Wizards?Would it have been seen as a greater success, both in terms of revenue and in the eyes of the fans? I ask this, because there are clearly a sub-set of RPG players that won't ever look twice at D&D past 1e ever again, assuming they haven't moved on to something else, and aren't looking back. Neither Pathfinder nor 4e has probably captured their business loyalty. But if Pathfinder was actually 4e, how would the scene heading into 5e look now, and would Paizo have even bothered creating the PFRPG at all? In some ways, it's academic; there's no point in rehashing history, right? But on another level, I think there may be some interesting points about the evolving tastes/culture of us as gamers. For example, I know for a fact before the 4e/3.x split, I would have NEVER considered running ANYTHING other than D&D. Now I've already dabbled in Savage Worlds, would love to try Runequest and Ars Magica, have gotten some experience with GURPS, want to try Dresden Files and Mongoose Traveller.......In an interesting way, are we as gamers overall better off now than if 4e HADN'T been such a radical departure from its roots?</blockquote>

Verification