Why do I complain about 4E?

[Jeff Wilder]

Because when you post something on a forum like this, your audience is everyone.

No. Not any more so that the audience for Fox News is "everyone," or the audience for Stephen King's latest book is "everyone." "Audience" is not "everyone who might see something in a particular medium."

Because you're looking for people who

A) made the edition jump without bothering even to think about it, and

B) are willing to admit that fact

That's a tiny fraction of my audience, and certainly not who I'm mainly targeting.

..and I just don't think there are very many people like that.

No, and I don't expect to get many other scarecrow-kin, either.

Think about it. Your argument begins with the assumption that your audience (whoever they may be) failed to think about a choice they made involving what's obviously a beloved hobby.

This is incorrect in two ways, in one sentence.

 

[jdrakeh]

Yeah pretty much a cause's worst enemy can be its supporters.

There are a great many products that I won't even consider purchasing (or repurchasing, in some cases where I caught unaware) because of overtly negative, vocal, fandom elements attached to them.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I really don't get Pathfinder, myself.

"Hey, they're abandoning the 3.5 audience! Let's make a game that's increasingly incompatible with it ourselves and tout it as an alternative to the other game that's not as compatible with it as we'd like!"

Hooray? New abilities, bucketloads of feats and other changes now mean that Pathfinder itself is the kind of game that Pathfinder was a reaction against.

That's not to say many of the changes aren't a good idea -- nor that I won't immediately snatch up Paizo's gnome sourcebook, when and if there is one -- but "hey, don't go to 4E, go do this other game that's also not 3.5 instead" seems sort of surreal. If I were open to that, I'd be looking at Unisystem and GURPS and Burning Wheel and Savage Worlds and a bunch of other stuff, too.

 

[hectorse]

I really don't get Pathfinder, myself.

"Hey, they're abandoning the 3.5 audience! Let's make a game that's increasingly incompatible with it ourselves and tout it as an alternative to the other game that's not as compatible with it as we'd like!"

Hooray? New abilities, bucketloads of feats and other changes now mean that Pathfinder itself is the kind of game that Pathfinder was a reaction against.

That's not to say many of the changes aren't a good idea -- nor that I won't immediately snatch up Paizo's gnome sourcebook, when and if there is one -- but "hey, don't go to 4E, go do this other game that's also not 3.5 instead" seems sort of surreal. If I were open to that, I'd be looking at Unisystem and GURPS and Burning Wheel and Savage Worlds and a bunch of other stuff, too.

That's exactly what I thought! I thought I was the only one

Why make another game and further segment your audience

Why wouldn't they produce 4th edition and keep producing 3.5?

Seems reckless and a very emotional response to a business practice

 

[pemerton]

3.5 is an exceptional RPG. It is not a perfect RPG. The truth of both of those statements can be seen in the adaptability of and adaptations to the base rules.

This reasoning is flawed. When we look at the "adaptability" of 3E, what do we get pointed to? M&M or True20, which are quite different RPGs which just happen to use the same stat range and d20/roll high mechanic. Or Arcana Unearthed and Conan OGL, which are basically D&D with variant settings, new magic systems, and a Fate Point mechanic added to give players a degree of narrative control.

How is this any different from Rolemaster, whose DP-based character build system and d100 open-ended action resolution system has been used for High Fantasy, Historical Fantasy, Science Fiction and Cyberpunk since before 3E was published? Or Runequest, whose engine was also used (with a differing magic system) for Pendragon, Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer?

1st ed AD&D could have been just as adaptable, if someone had bothered to write up class descriptions and weapon vs armour tables for a sci-fi game. We could call it D&D-modern. That wouldn't prove that 1st ed AD&D was an exceptional game.

 

[Uzzy]

That's exactly what I thought! I thought I was the only one

Why make another game and further segment your audience

Why wouldn't they produce 4th edition and keep producing 3.5?

Seems reckless and a very emotional response to a business practice

Because 3.5 is going out of print? Because it's hard to sell a set of adventures to stores when the ruleset for those adventures is no longer available outside of second hand stores and E-bay? Not to mention the poor PR of saying 'To use this product, you need to first go through Ebay and find the 3.5 Rules'

So that's why they are publishing their own book. And given that they are doing that, why not fix some of the glaring bugs with 3.5? What kind of reaction would they get if they just reprinted the SRD?

Heck, they are even giving everyone the Beta rules for Pathfinder for free.

 

[kiznit]

3.0/3.5 is an amazing game. I remember back in 2000 opening those books up, seeing the art design and the level of detail, the options presented, the variety, everything, and literally getting goosebumps over how badly I wanted to play it so bad, it completely and totally re-established my deep and abiding love for the hobby.

While I really, really like 4th edition, and I can't wait to play it, and I'm really, really looking forward to exploring its potential depth, running many many combats to come and building deep and imaginative campaigns with it, it certainly doesn't capture that original feeling of joy and being utterly impressed by the game like third edition did.

Why?

Because Third Edition was so awesome. I'm not off of the high from discovering it yet.

4th edition is going to be a lot of fun to play because it builds on the foundation of third edition, which taught me to have a whole heck of a lot of fun on a more or less weekly basis. I'm looking forward to playing the occasional third edition game many times in the upcoming years as well to recapture that specific edition feel.

I see no reason to lock myself into only playing one or the other. But 4th Edition is "new" and "intriguing" and "different" and in a lot of ways that means "better for the time being" and I think a certain amount of overlooking of potential flaws and stuff that doesn't match previous roleplaying paradigms is definitely worth it just to broaden the ol' palette.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Why?

Because Third Edition was so awesome.

was is.
But other than that teensy quibble, I'd say your assessment is spot on.

The main problem with 4e, all debatable points aside for a sec, is that *3e is too good*. I don't envy the 4e folks their task, and I guess I understand why some of the marketing has been the way it's been - how else do you overcome that very real and very relevant issue.

 

[kiznit]

was is.
But other than that teensy quibble, I'd say your assessment is spot on.

Thanks for catching my fumble.

 

[Aus_Snow]

No worries at all! I'm all about the mauling and humiliation of subscribers to TNETSNBN, even with the crappiest cheap shots I can muster.













what?