D&D General What if Critical Role had stuck with Pathfinder? Or 4E?

[HammerMan]

What I'm seeing is that you don't even want to address the core of the problem, which is why it was dying in the first place. Of course, when it's dying, it snowballs as people don't want to invest, obviously.

and part of that is people spreading (in some cases true in many cases not... I still see the 'everyone had spells' and the 'any skill roll can be used all skills are interchangable' arguments today almost 10 years later) information and memes... adding to the fact that JUST being #1 wasn't enough.

Anyone of us (unless someone here is really really well off) would kill to 'fail' by making as much as 4e did.

 

[Lyxen]

I hate that people twist things...

And I hate that people can't look at simple facts right in the face.

I don't like something it's an excuse... I do like it then it is just a reason. Little turn of phrases.

When it's presented like an excuse, well, it sounds like an excuse.

you have no more proof then anyone else...

And yet, the facts are there, and everyone accepts them except people looking for excuses not to look them straight in the face. There was no need for Essentials (contrary to 3.5, as 3e was clearly an unfinished product, whereas 4e was really well put together from the start), there was no market growth, so WotC tried the only thing they could think of, trying to get more money for more or less the same things from the same people than just a few years earlier, and that was a clear signal that the concept was collapsing under its own weight for lack of market.

Again, not a slight on the quality of the product, it was really well put together, but on a concept that, frankly, is way better supported by the computer medium.

 

[Lyxen]

Anyone of us (unless someone here is really really well off) would kill to 'fail' by making as much as 4e did.

You know, it's really funny seeing you spout things like that and saying to the others that they don't have proof of what they say...

 

[HammerMan]

Good grief. Yet another thread war?

.if you don't like them, why right after saying 'good greif' do you jump into the war... why not try to stop it instead of throwing fuel on it?

I get that some people liked 4E. I liked, and miss, certain aspects of it. But it simply didn't meet sales expectations.

yeah... it went from 800lbs gorilla in the room to ONLY the 600lbs gorilla in the room... 5e blew it away and is the 2 ton gorilla army now.

It just wasn't a mass market hit like 5E. That says nothing about the quality of the game, whether it was a good design for some people or not.

and yet these threads are full of people spreading the lie that it failed...

Part of 5E's success is a happy confluence of events including streaming, general public acceptance, better sales and publishing strategy.

yes, 5e out did 4e... but lets take your final sentence.

This edition simply has greater sustainability and growth potential, it's always greatly exceeded expectations from the very beginning.

this can be said of every edition if you compare it to the one that came before it... especially when you compare early years of the new one to late years of the last...

 

[HammerMan]

And I hate that people can't look at simple facts right in the face.

objections... facts not in evidence.

just stop... stop trying to say becuse YOU want it to be true it is 'simple facts' or some always known truth...

When it's presented like an excuse, well, it sounds like an excuse.

word games...

And yet, the facts are there, and everyone accepts them except people looking for excuses not to look them straight in the face. There was no need for Essentials (contrary to 3.5, as 3e was clearly an unfinished product, whereas 4e was really well put together from the start), there was no market growth, so WotC tried the only thing they could think of, trying to get more money for more or less the same things from the same people than just a few years earlier, and that was a clear signal that the concept was collapsing under its own weight for lack of market.

lol... really?

gain, not a slight on the quality of the product, it was really well put together, but on a concept that, frankly, is way better supported by the computer medium.

oh wow... "its just an MMO" arguement... really can you try something other then meme arguments?

You know, it's really funny seeing you spout things like that and saying to the others that they don't have proof of what they say...

what is funny is you don't understand what the diffrence in saying (with a qualifier no less) that most people would be super happy with 'only' being #1 by a nose (WotC had it by feet but even if it was a nose) or even being #2 since (as far as I know) none of us own or run #1 companies in our fields...

 

[Remathilis]

There was no need for Essentials (contrary to 3.5, as 3e was clearly an unfinished product, whereas 4e was really well put together from the start), ...

I'm gonna call bs on this. 4e was NOT well put together. It was conceptually sound, but the design was an absolute mess and the proof of that was the mountains of errata that those products needed. The PC math needed a complete rewrite of the armor table in AV1, mandatory feat taxes to fix saves and base attacks came in PHB2. Whole powers and subclasses got rewritten (Martial Power) the skill challenge system went through two large overhauls, and the monster math was terrible until MM2 made it playable and MM3 made it good. 4e needed another year or so in development to find all the math issues that plagued those first two years, and by the time they figured it out and Essentials came, 4e had it's reputation cemented.

So I don't think 4e was well put together from the start. I think it felt rushed and the errata that was constantly invalidating what had been printed in the books and need to redo whole rule sets shows that. (If you had access and knowledge of the errata, you were playing a very different game in 2010 then if you just used the books as they were published).

Now to be fair, 5e has had some of that two: Xanathar and Tasha both changed parts of the game fundamentally, and Mordie Presents is a giant errata document turned into a sourcebook. But the underlying main game loop of 5e has been sound in ways 4e could only dreamt of being, and you don't get a second chance to make a first impression.

 

[HammerMan]

I'm gonna call bs on this. 4e was NOT well put together. It was conceptually sound, but the design was an absolute mess and the proof of that was the mountains of errata that those products needed.

earlier I gave my #2 grip about 4e (the long haul fights that didn't matter after half way point... mostly IMO due to HP bloat) but this is my #1... it needed more polish.
It is a great system... BUT it reinvented so much that it didn't have enough playtest, and needed 1/2 it's life to get really going.

having said that a modified 4e is what I want for 6e.

the skill challenge system went through two large overhauls,

man talk about a great idea that needs work to execute Skill challenges needed like 5 more rewrites and another year or two of play testing... I wish 5e had kept them and they kept working on them

 

[Vaalingrade]

.if you don't like them, why right after saying 'good greif' do you jump into the war... why not try to stop it instead of throwing fuel on it?

Because berating people for it is a means of trying to 'win' the war.

 

[Lyxen]

objections... facts not in evidence.

Well, these are still more facts than what you have put in ten posts.

oh wow... "its just an MMO" arguement... really can you try something other then meme arguments?

Well, you know, just because it's a meme does not mean it's not true. And I did not say that 4e was a MMO, I was just saying that the very principles of 4e lend themselves well to being implemented on computers, which put the game in competition on some of its market segment. Very, very different.

What is funny is you don't understand what the diffrence in saying (with a qualifier no less) that most people would be super happy with 'only' being #1 by a nose (WotC had it by feet but even if it was a nose) or even being #2 since (as far as I know) none of us own or run #1 companies in our fields...

And what is funny is that you don't understand that I absolutely don't care about that kind of "reasoning", not only in itself, but because you have (as usual on these topic) absolutely zero proof that anyone held them in the past or that they have any value in the present. Facts are facts, your personal speculations have zero value for me.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Well, you know, just because it's a meme does not mean it's not true.\

It's the being untrue and baldly and purposefully inflammatory that makes it not true.