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

[Lyxen]

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.

That is not a proof in itself apart from the fact that, because it was technical, it needed errata. 3e was technical, 4e was technical, PF is and was technical, MtG is technical, they all need a huge quantity of errata because of that simple fact. Were absolutely all of these "badly put together" ? No, they were not, it's again all these fantastic designers on the internet who have zero published games to their credit but who just like to brag that they would have done better, nothing more.

Thankfully, 5e adopted a very different trend, wanting to be not technical at all, with no jargon, which not only made errara much less necessary, but also happened to please a much greater population. But I'm sure you've noticed that, despite the fact that there are very few errata, there are still people around claiming that it's terrible design...

 

[HammerMan]

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.

doesn't mean it is true either... and you are free to think what you like about 4e... when you say it in these forms to people who disagree, you should expect them to disagree.

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.

and you have 0 facts. no one has any memos from inside WotC. No one can produce 1 interview were an employee called it a failure... but you insist on saying things like this... if youONLY want facts, you should see your self out of this argument that is ONLY opinion and no facts.

 

[HammerMan]

t I'm sure you've noticed that, despite the fact that there are very few errata, there are still people around claiming that it's terrible design...

there are the facts... of every edition... you just need to find the one you like and stop hateing on and spreading said hate of the ones you don't.

 

[Lyxen]

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

Pray tell, what is inflammatory in saying that the technical implementation of 4e made it easier to implement in computers ? There is nothing inherently bad about this. For example I like Solasta, it's made a interesting implementation of 5e, and it would have been great with 4e, possibly better.

But it's a computer game, does this make 4e or 5e look better as a TTRPG ? It's totally unrelated, again, "better" is purely a matter of taste. I'm only comparing facts like sales and popularity, not the inherent qualities of products.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Pray tell, what is inflammatory in saying that the technical implementation of 4e made it easier to implement in computers ? There is nothing inherently bad about this. For example I like Solasta, it's made a interesting implementation of 5e, and it would have been great with 4e, possibly better.

But it's a computer game, does this make 4e or 5e look better as a TTRPG ? It's totally unrelated, again, "better" is purely a matter of taste. I'm only comparing facts like sales and popularity, not the inherent qualities of products.

We all know that's not what's actually being said when that 'point' is brought up to prod people.

 

[Lyxen]

doesn't mean it is true either... and you are free to think what you like about 4e... when you say it in these forms to people who disagree, you should expect them to disagree.

Disagreement is fine as long as it's at least vaguely substantiated, otherwise, well look at what's happening to your "arguments".

and you have 0 facts. no one has any memos from inside WotC. No one can produce 1 interview were an employee called it a failure... but you insist on saying things like this... if youONLY want facts, you should see your self out of this argument that is ONLY opinion and no facts.

The simple facts about popularity drop compared to PF, what happened to 4e in terms of publication and support as well as the results of 5e are sufficient. You have nothing to counteract this.

 

[Lyxen]

We all know that's not what's actually being said when that 'point' is brought up to prod people.

I don't care what prod people bring up. I'm here to discuss the subject of the thead, the problem is that despite taking huge care about not being inflammatory, some people are so defensive about 4e that they have to start an edition war as soon as someone says anything about 4e, negative or not, they have to jump in, defend "sales" or whatever without a shred of proof, etc.

I don't care about all of that, it's clear for example that CR was obscure until it went to 5e where it skyrocketed, for example. And the same about 5e popularity.

After that, if people prefer to run their games using 4e or PF, good for them, these games have qualities, and if that is what they are looking for, again, good for them.

 

[HammerMan]

Pray tell, what is inflammatory in saying that the technical implementation of 4e made it easier to implement in computers ? There is nothing inherently bad about this.

unless it is used as a reason to NOT have things like it in a Paper and Dice TTRPG... then it is BOTH bad (AKA shouldn't be done) and Inflammatory (trying to enrage fans of)

But it's a computer game, does this make 4e or 5e look better as a TTRPG ? It's totally unrelated, again, "better" is purely a matter of taste. I'm only comparing facts like sales and popularity, not the inherent qualities of products.

the only facts we have is that WotC has told us 3e out sold 2e, 3.5 out sold 3.0. 4e out sold 3.5. Pathfinder took some of D&Ds wind splitting the fan base for 3.5 into 2 groups (PF and 4e... although even that is an oversimplification because there is a ven diagram of people who used both). 5e has out performed every previous edition and has created what seems to be the best market for TTRPGs.

that's it... those are the facts.

now some like 4e. some like 3e. some still think anything after 1e was a sell out (yeah, atleast in 2018 there was a 1e game running in my area that half the players refused to call anything after 1990 D&D), Most of us here like 5e and are interested in improving on our favorite editions.

anything about 'better as a video game' or 'was too hard to learn' or even (IMO a true one) 'Casters have too much supremacy' are opinions based on the above facts plus our own views... '4e failed' is really code for 'i didn't like 4e'

 

[Vaalingrade]

they have to start an edition war

Yes. That is what you did.

 

[HammerMan]

The simple facts about popularity drop compared to PF,

facts not in evidence

what happened to 4e in terms of publication and support as well as the results of 5e are sufficient. You have nothing to counteract this.

there is nothing to contradict