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

[HammerMan]

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.

What?!? why would a thread about a hypthetical world were CR launched under another edition require you to jump in to slam 4e?

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.

then why continue to push the anti 4e narrative? why claim you have facts? why try to claim we don't have a leg to stand on?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Anatomy of the thread:

4e: IS mentioned

Someone: HAY GUYS DID YOU KNOW I CAN REPEAT THINGS THAT WERE DISPROVEN OR HASHED OUT A DECADE AGO?! HERE I GO!

 

[HammerMan]

Anatomy of the thread:

4e: IS mentioned

Someone: HAY GUYS DID YOU KNOW I CAN REPEAT THINGS THAT WERE DISPROVEN OR HASHED OUT A DECADE AGO?! HERE I GO!

followed by claims of "Why are YOU edition warring over simple facts"

 

[darjr]

@HammerMan can you site
“4e outsold 3e”?

 

[HammerMan]

@HammerMan can you site
“4e outsold 3e”?

not at this moment. I can search for it if no one else with better google fu gets to it first.

 

[Remathilis]

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...

It wasn't the existence of errata, it was the scope and nature. 4e required constant patching to keep the math functional and that often involved rewriting whole abilities and even game subsystems. 5e, 3.5, even Pathfinder, doesn't match what 4e was doing in 2008-09 as far as invalidating it's own books. 4e needed another year or two in the oven to fix those issues, which is what I was objecting to: 4e was not a good system ruined by expansion and bloat, it was a flawed system that found it's sea legs long after it had been judged.

 

[Lyxen]

Yes. That is what you did.

Again, by saying what, exactly ? Exact quote, if you please, and how that was derogatory.

 

[Lyxen]

It wasn't the existence of errata, it was the scope and nature. 4e required constant patching to keep the math functional and that often involved rewriting whole abilities and even game subsystems. 5e, 3.5, even Pathfinder, doesn't match what 4e was doing in 2008-09 as far as invalidating it's own books. 4e needed another year or two in the oven to fix those issues, which is what I was objecting to: 4e was not a good system ruined by expansion and bloat, it was a bad system that found it's sea legs long after it had been judged.

Honestly, I found the need to 3.5 so soon after 3e much worse than continuous erratas...

 

[Maggan]

not at this moment. I can search for it if no one else with better google fu gets to it first.

There's a thread here at EN World talking about it:

D&D 3E/3.5 - 4E vs 3E Sales Figures: The Facts

Interesting numbers here: http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/12654.html Basically, it looks like the print run for 4e was half again as much as 3.5E and it's already sold out. Back to the printers you go! Not sure how it would compare to 3E's first print run, to be honest. Edit: The sales...

www.enworld.org

 

[HammerMan]

4e needed another year or two in the oven to fix those issues,

yeah 100%... TBH it is why I was (and am) so disappointed in the direction 5e took. 4e needed more work, a new edition with a few years of playtestting could have worked out alot of the kinks

which is what I was objecting to: 4e was not a good system ruined by expansion and bloat, it was a bad system that found it's sea legs long after it had been judged.

it was a goodish system out the gate, based on the best idea's I have heard in years... it just got better with each errata and update. I don't think it was ever a bad system... it just was a half baked cake.