This Has All Happened Before, and This Will All Happen Again

57 posts / 0 new
Last post

I’ve been a part of the online gamer community for quite a few years now, I’ve been gaming through two edition transitions, and I’ve made a few observations. In my very first post, I mentioned how a gamer’s game and edition preference is a lot like political party affiliation, for better or for worse. Well today I’m expanding that thought.


The edition cycle is a lot like the election cycle. The few months after a new leader takes center stage is a time of intense debate as euphoric supporters duke it out with disgruntled dissidents to define new policies and political dynamics. Then everyone settles into those new policies and life goes on for a few more-or-less quiet years. But inevitably the Man makes decisions that offend some of his constituency -- everybody makes mistakes, and you can’t please everyone anyway. Eventually discussions become more prevalent and more heated, as dissent escalates. Some constituents start noticing policy problems, some just want a change of political scenery. And then someone decides it’s time for a big change, and we start all over again.


It’s no wonder that we complete a lap on the edition treadmill every few years. It’s not anyone’s fault; it’s not necessarily even bad. It’s simply a convergence of circumstance and psychology. History is cyclical, and nothing will change that fact short of a drastic change in the communal condition.


This has all happened before, and this will all happen again.

I also wrote about the cycle of gamer psychology in my blog today, but I figured this much text would be enough for most forumites.

I’ve been a part of the online gamer community for quite a few years now, I’ve been gaming through two edition transitions, and I’ve made a few observations. In my very first post, I mentioned how a gamer’s game and edition preference is a lot like political party affiliation, for better or for worse. Well today I’m expanding that thought.


The edition cycle is a lot like the election cycle. The few months after a new leader takes center stage is a time of intense debate as euphoric supporters duke it out with disgruntled dissidents to define new policies and political dynamics. Then everyone settles into those new policies and life goes on for a few more-or-less quiet years. But inevitably the Man makes decisions that offend some of his constituency -- everybody makes mistakes, and you can’t please everyone anyway. Eventually discussions become more prevalent and more heated, as dissent escalates. Some constituents start noticing policy problems, some just want a change of political scenery. And then someone decides it’s time for a big change, and we start all over again.


It’s no wonder that we complete a lap on the edition treadmill every few years. It’s not anyone’s fault; it’s not necessarily even bad. It’s simply a convergence of circumstance and psychology. History is cyclical, and nothing will change that fact short of a drastic change in the communal condition.


This has all happened before, and this will all happen again.

I also wrote about the cycle of gamer psychology in my blog today, but I figured this much text would be enough for most forumites.


^^^CYLON!!!1!
I've considered political parties as an apt comparison to inter- or intra-edition warring for some time now. It's a fairly obvious comparison.
...whatever
I've considered political parties as an apt comparison to inter- or intra-edition warring for some time now. It's a fairly obvious comparison.



  Or TV shows, or movies, businesses, or churches, or schools, heck, pretty much any institution that undergoes any kind of change- ever.  And geeks/nerds are- almost by definition- rather obssessive, so that just exacerbates the situation.
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
Which is perfectly fine. If cycles of game design didn't happen, we wouldn't have gotten 4e after all. But why has the cycle been sped up so that even before some campaigns have finished they have the rules changed on them in fundamental ways? E.G. Living Forgotten Realms and the rarity system, which caused a big upset and even now the devs say wasn't implemented before being enforced.
hehe Oxybe  I was going to point out the same group.  If you look back far enough you can see the same sentiments expressed in almost the same words over and over and over again as each edition comes out.  In some cases, if you *** out any reference to an edition number, publisher, or year, the rants are nearly indistinguishable (barring specific reference to, say, THAC0)

to save everyone who doesn't have time to scour old usenet posts, research their shows:
each edition is just making a D&D a computer game clone (surprisingly all)
each edition is also just making  D&D a board-/wargame clone (all)
each edition is just turning D&D into a card game  (hard to find a 1st to 2nd ref here, but possible)
each edition is just a money grab by greedy capitalists putting their iron-toed jackboots to the real gamers (all)
each edition is ruining roleplay (all)
each edition is being dumbed down for kids (all)
and so on

I wish someone with more time than me would port over a bunch of the rants, scrub out the edition or year, and turn it into a quiz.  Only the lucky could match edition war era to rant 100% of the time.  

INSIDE SCOOP, GAMERS: In the new version of D&D, it will no longer be "Edition Wars." It will be "Edition Lair Assault." - dungeonbastard

Leave politics out of this.  I don't want to have to start reporting people.  There is a reason politics and political analogies aren't allowed on these forums (along with religion).
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.

2nd edition supplemental materials and accessories included such products as:

Monster Cards - terribly illustrated cards that could be shown to the players when the monster was encountered.
Magic Item Cards - each magic item in the core rulebooks put on a card, organized in a box, to be handed out when the player received an item

As well as using cards for simulation of game elements... whether the tarokka deck, the deck of many things, or what every else.

So yeah... cards have been around.

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

I've removed content from this thread because Disruption is a violation of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code of Conduct here.  
Good post TS. Does this mean we can impeach the devs?


We could try, but I don't think it'd make much difference. Well, other than 5e arriving sooner than later.

^^^CYLON!!!1!


Pay no attention to the large android, citizen. It's just a Japanese cleaning aide.
Which is perfectly fine. If cycles of game design didn't happen, we wouldn't have gotten 4e after all. But why has the cycle been sped up so that even before some campaigns have finished they have the rules changed on them in fundamental ways? E.G. Living Forgotten Realms and the rarity system, which caused a big upset and even now the devs say wasn't implemented before being enforced.

In answer to why it's speeding up, my theroy is two fold.  And both folds have to do with the exposure of various media platforms.

1.) the internet.  It's a default response to why is anything happening, but in terms of converstaion and communication it is a massive change since 1976.  Now companies can ask questions, get answers, establish a presence that is independent of geography, etc.

The main thing is that stuff that might have taken months to playtest and questions to have answers resolved now takes weeks, sometimes days.

An example:  the warlock playtest article.  Previously, if this was placed in a print magazine, it would have gone out to only subscribers, and only at the top of the month.  Then the staff would have to await responses, probably taking months to accumilate.  Those responses would have to be taken at fdace value, as the communication was not likely to be two way, and there is also a problem with geography.  For instance Erachima may live in seattle, or he/she may live in japan, korea, tibet, Russia, South Africa, etc.  those locations would not recieve the mailing, so their opinions (and likely other intelligent opinions) couldn't be sought out.

Also, if conventions were a method of playtesting, than you'd be limitted to those convention cycles too.

Finally, media exposure.  Because more games are making more products, to be a top end producer you need to make sure you're making more than other people (in a narrow view).  The impression on RPG drive thru is that the market is MASSIVE and that any single company is a small fish (barely 5% of the total available products).  But that is a false ness, which pushes development of product just to APPEAR competitive.  This is seen in amny industries, not just RPG's.

2.) business standards have changed dramatically.  As Kevin Siembada pointed out, Palladium is now the oldest RPG company that there is (that I know of).  Since 1981, they have not changed ownership, not been bought or sold, and have been a going concern.

They likely have been able to do this by seeing their products as a long term investment.  Rifts (like it or hate it) sold very well, and the core rules were relevant for 20 years (only recently updated to a 1.25e in 2005).

Business strategy has changed significantly in two major ways: first there has been an increasing trend in business objectives to look only to the short term.  This has ofcourse been the subject of multitudes of fraudulent behavior over the last 30 years, but also changes the method in which games are designed and released.  It has changed the perception of value in a product (and this largely covers the whole gaming industry) and evergreen like monopoly just isn't the goal anymore.  Sure they want to have a game that popular, but most games end up being small runs of things, with maybe 4% acheiving that evergreen standard.  This is complicated by the internet (again) since the market is not limitted by geography and small producers can effectively market with less expenditure.  also distrobution has changed to allow tighter competition.

Other aspect is that subsidiary companies, like WotC are unfortunately beholden to their parents, and they are held to a minimum standard of ROI based on the cost of aquisition adn other internal factors.  If a Subsidiary creates a profit, but that profit is less % wise than another Subsidiary/corporate investment, the Company will often place funds in what produces a Larger ROI.  Now this is not absolute, and a smart company diversifies with products that operate on various life cycles and in different economic climates.  But WotC probably has a unspoken minimum % ROI, and I'm sure they have goals to meet.  Problem is these goals may be higher than a company such as Palladium (which employees, like, 10 people I think) or even Paizo (which is a dwarf compared to WotC) which IIRC is "privately" owned.

So there is a speed up.

There is also a pecieved speed up because as interweb folk we spin our wheels at work rather than working, since we can be indulgent and do so.
My Blog, mostly about D&D.
57304548 wrote:
I imagine that Majestic Moose plays a more "A team" type game than most of us. By that I mean he allows his players to make tanks out of a backyard playground set since the players have more "fun" that way.
Actually I much prefer The Losers.
Show
When I and my friends sit down we want a game of heroic fantasy. Rare is the moment when I have cried out in a video game or RPG "that's unrealistic." (Unless there is no jump button. Seriously makes me mad, single handedly ruined the N64 zelda series for me, but that's a digression of a digression.) I mean, we play games with the force in galaxies far, far away, with supernatural horrors, dragons and demi-gods, alternate cosmologies, etc. Reality and it's effects hold little sway to what makes a Heroic fantasy game fun IMO. Just repeat after me: You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You are not how much you've spent on WotC products. You are not whatever RPG you play. You are one of tens of thousands of people that spend money on a hobby. You will not always get what you want
Nod.  Each ed brings skeptics who are suspcious of it, enthusiasts who embrace it, grognards who reject it and cling to some previous one, and the majority who just accept it and move on.

I've been though the cycle repeatedly, since I started with the Basic Set in 1980.  The Essentials cycle is the first time I find myself not making the transition from skepticism to acceptance, though.  I'm rarely an early-adopting enthusiast, I want to evaluate the new ed, and I'm always willing to look at what might be wrong with it.  But, in the past, each new ed was an improvement, a very slight improvement in the case of 2e, for instance, or an improvement in spite of the horrid way it was sprung on the fans in the case of 3.5, but an improvement on some level or in some areas.   

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

@Tony

I don't think it's fair to judge Essentials on the same basis as an addition change. It's an addition and an alternat entry point, not a new edition that replaces the old. I'd say essentials looks different when you judge it as a supplement compared to judging it as a new edition.
...whatever

As a de-facto new ed, Essentials is merely bad.

As a 'suplement,' it'd be apalling. 

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!


As a de-facto new ed, Essentials is merely bad.

As a 'suplement,' it'd be apalling. 




The difference would be that a bad supplement is easier to ignore.
...whatever
And, with PH1 being updated to match Essentials, D&D Encounters being Essentials-only, and Essentials representing the new design philosophy going forward, it couldn't be much harder to ignore. 

I'm sorry, but the soil in my area is hard clay, sticking my head in the sand is just not an option.  ;P


Seriously, though, whether you care to admit that Essentials is a half-ed or not, it's suffering the exact same cycle of rejection-and-adoption that each ed goes through.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Nod.  Each ed brings skeptics who are suspcious of it, enthusiasts who embrace it, grognards who reject it and cling to some previous one, and the majority who just accept it and move on.

I've been though the cycle repeatedly, since I started with the Basic Set in 1980.  The Essentials cycle is the first time I find myself not making the transition from skepticism to acceptance, though.  I'm rarely an early-adopting enthusiast, I want to evaluate the new ed, and I'm always willing to look at what might be wrong with it.  But, in the past, each new ed was an improvement, a very slight improvement in the case of 2e, for instance, or an improvement in spite of the horrid way it was sprung on the fans in the case of 3.5, but an improvement on some level or in some areas.   



Heh. I, too started in 1980 at the tender age of five. I never had a problem with edition changes. I actually was glad 3.5 came out, it added a ton of tactical combat crunch to 3rd. Essentials has been the first release that i just didn't understand. I'm not even sure if Wizards mishandled how it released. It just seems Essentials was not the way to go about doing things.
And, with PH1 being updated to match Essentials, D&D Encounters being Essentials-only, and Essentials representing the new design philosophy going forward, it couldn't be much harder to ignore. 

I'm sorry, but the soil in my area is hard clay, sticking my head in the sand is just not an option.  ;P


Seriously, though, whether you care to admit that Essentials is a half-ed or not, it's suffering the exact same cycle of rejection-and-adoption that each ed goes through.



Nicely said about the rejection and adoption.
And, with PH1 being updated to match Essentials, D&D Encounters being Essentials-only, and Essentials representing the new design philosophy going forward, it couldn't be much harder to ignore. 

I'm sorry, but the soil in my area is hard clay, sticking my head in the sand is just not an option.  ;P


Seriously, though, whether you care to admit that Essentials is a half-ed or not, it's suffering the exact same cycle of rejection-and-adoption that each ed goes through.



Tome of Battle and 3E Psionics went through the same cycle.
...whatever
Seriously, though, whether you care to admit that Essentials is a half-ed or not, it's suffering the exact same cycle of rejection-and-adoption that each ed goes through.

Tome of Battle and 3E Psionics went through the same cycle.

If they did, it was muted by comparison to the 3.5, 4e and Essentials rollouts.  I don't recall that much controversely around 3E psionics, beyond the controversey psionics always brings out just for being genre-inapropriate.  Same for Tome of Battle, it was surprising and re-vamped the fighter agressively, but wasn't heralded as the end of days or anything.

ToB did make a substantial change to a well-established, well-done core class (the Fighter was 'under powered' but the flaw lay with the magic system, not the fighter itself).  In that sense it's like Essentials.  But, ToB tried to improve the fighter, hopeless though the attempt was (casters were just too wildly imbalanced for the Fighter to be brought up to their level).

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Beyond the general psionics issues, there were major flaws in the original 3E psionics rollout that were rather substantially improved in the Expanded Psionics Handbook, to the point where the Psionics Handbook was basically obsolete.  While present within the 3/3.5 process, it was distinct.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
And, with PH1 being updated to match Essentials, D&D Encounters being Essentials-only, and Essentials representing the new design philosophy going forward, it couldn't be much harder to ignore. 

I'm sorry, but the soil in my area is hard clay, sticking my head in the sand is just not an option.  ;P


Seriously, though, whether you care to admit that Essentials is a half-ed or not, it's suffering the exact same cycle of rejection-and-adoption that each ed goes through.



What is being changed about the PH1 to match Essentials? The Templar? They backed off on that after everybody freaked out. Warlord and Fighter already got through unscathed, and they are two of the worst offenders. Everybody bitches about Encounters, but how many people have really joined an encounters group with the intention of playing and found themselves forbidden to play a non-Essentials character? The design philosophy going forward? At this point I expect Heroes of the Feywild to look more like Heroes of Shadow than not, but beyond that they haven't announced anything. We're getting a Str Cleric article this month, and they're claiming that they're going to support some of the classes with less options(Runepriest, Seeker, ect.) in the future in Dragon, so the design going forward isn't entirely monolithic.

Then of course, you have the fact that 4E has a lot of material already, not quite as much as 3.5E had at the end, but closer than you'd think.

I also think the rejection of Essentials is far more overblown than the reality. Far more people in the "do you use Essentials, non-Essentials, or mix the two" thread either mixed the two or disregarded Essentials without prejudice than indicated a hostility towards it. I think those who are upset by Essentials are far louder than they are numerous.
...whatever
Let's not derail TS' excellent thread into E-wars quite yet. Thanks.

Seriously, though, whether you care to admit that Essentials is a half-ed or not, it's suffering the exact same cycle of rejection-and-adoption that each ed goes through.


I think we can all agree that us nerds find all kinds of things to argue about, whether it be Skills & Powers, Tome of Battle, or Essentials. I'm sure 5e will eventually have some hot-button splat that splits edition allegiances.

Isn't it a thread /about/ E-wars?   That they're about as avoidable as death & taxes?

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Yo, C4, didn't know you're on WotC!


Isn't it a thread /about/ E-wars?   That they're about as avoidable as death & taxes?



Right, it's a thread about stuff like E-wars. Just like a news special might be about a real war, but doesn't actually involve me in the war.

I'm hoping this thread remains a news screen rather than becoming a battleground, so Tony, the Cas, and everyone else with a bone to pick -- I'd appreciate if you took this to one of the seventeen E battlegrounds. 
Seriously, though, whether you care to admit that Essentials is a half-ed or not, it's suffering the exact same cycle of rejection-and-adoption that each ed goes through.



Then of course, you have the fact that 4E has a lot of material already, not quite as much as 3.5E had at the end, but closer than you'd think.

I also think the rejection of Essentials is far more overblown than the reality.

We each have our own limitted experiences with that.  At the last convention I attended, there had been an even split between 4e and 'all others' the year before.  This year, it was a little less than even, 4e falling behind - and there was /one/ Essentials game.  Essentials was announced last year.  That's some surprising non-adoption... especially as that con is more prone to attract newbies than the others I frequent - it's very 'familiy' oriented, so there's an emphasis on YP and intro games.  If Essentials were delivering, I'd've expected to see a number of YP Red Box or Essentials intro games.  Nothin.  It's dissapointing, since, as much as I don't care for Essentials, I don't want to see 4e fail as a result of its failure... 

Maybe the Essentials-hate phenomenon we see on here isn't quite the same as with every other rev roll - if Essentials /isn't/ a rev roll, then by definition, it's not the same...

...oh, another difference: the 4e-hate cycle isn't even over yet, there's still virulent hatred of 4e by 3.5 holdouts... so, really, it's getting blasted from both sides.  


 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Good post TS. Does this mean we can impeach the devs?

I would dearly love a way to hold WoTC accountable for the disastrous mis-management of its various product lines.
You do - stop buying things you don't like.  It's what I did.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
If they did, it was muted by comparison to the 3.5, 4e and Essentials rollouts.   I don't recall that much controversely around 3E psionics, beyond the controversey psionics always brings out just for being genre-inapropriate.


Now, that's just plain old confirmation bias.  There were all sorts of flame wars when 3e psionics came out and it wasn't just about it being genre-inappropropriate.  There were long dissertations that 3e psionics represented a complete shift in design philosophy, the death of d20, the rewriting of the GSL, blah blah blah.  The arguments were very similar to the arguments against Essentials.

Tome of Battle was even worse with accusations that fighters were being turned into wizards, that Wizards couldn't balance fighters by keeping them fighteriffic, blah, blah, blah, but the rancor was short-lived because 4e was announced shortly thereafter and all the ToB haters immediately became 3e grognards.

Every time the game tries something novel, some people are alienated and leave the game.  (And some of those people may have been playing the game for decades.)  Some people love it and get drawn in, and most people don't care and move on.  A handful always decide they hate it and stick around telling everyone else why they should hate it too and the only direction that will let the game survive is backwards.  But it never happens. 

Oh, maybe a single decision will be undone.  Maybe some errata will be released.  But design changes?  You never go back from that.  4e isn't going to move backwards from Essentials any more than 3e was going to rewrite the Psionics Handbook of Book of Nine Swords.  4e may abandon Essentials, but it will not be to go back to what once was.  Not if nearly 40 years of RPG history is any guide.  They'll just try something else completely new.  
You do - stop buying things you don't like.  It's what I did.



While that is good for the wallet. They keep chugging on with their poor ideas and badly written straight jacket classes.





And still people keep buying the new stuff, giving it either tacit or intentional acceptance. Enough people do it, and WotC doesn't look back. Whatever happens, it happens with or without your say and you deal with it.
...whatever
Paizo should release a Pathfinder 4E, with some minor cosmetic changes and half-assed new content, so the 4E grognards can stick it to WotC just like the 3.5E guys.
...whatever
Paizo should release a Pathfinder 4E, with some minor cosmetic changes and half-assed new content, so the 4E grognards can stick it to WotC just like the 3.5E guys.



Jealous of Paizo?
jealous of what, their ability to copy/paste the SRD into a hardbound book, apply a few non-fixes and stick it to the proverbial man? 
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
jealous of what, their ability to copy/paste the SRD into a hardbound book, apply a few non-fixes and stick it to the proverbial man? 



Apparently Paizo brought the gaming populace what we were asking for.  What we buy is a decision and Paizo makes no secret as to what is in their books.  They create memorable campaigns, suberb quality books and adventures, sells PDF's to the public because they didn't buy into the whole piracy BS that Wizards was afraid of, and Paizo actually listens to it's community.

I'm afraid there is a lot more going on here than just copying and pasting some material.  You might want to expand your horizon and actually do some research into Pathfinder and Paizo.
other then the fact i've been playing PF for over a year now? i've played it and i'm wholly unimpressed, kinda pissed even since they said they'd try to solve the issues people had with 3.5... and to be honest, they've not solved any of the issues i've had with 3.5 and actually seemed to have made some of them worse by, for whatever reason, actually giving the wizard more options. the only reason i'm still playing it is because the group far more then makes up for the system's many shortcomings, and even this is starting to be less and less of an incentive. once this campaign is done, i'm done with 3.5 and it's offspring.

the campaigns and adventures they publish are ok, i'm not a fan of running modules but i can see why there is a demand, but it's been my experience that if you try to jump off the rails they either grind to a halt or end up being too easy. since it's an adventure "path" you're really not advised to leave from the rails should the modules go in a way you don't care for. 

unless, you know, one year of pathfinder and 2 years of another one of their adventure paths during the mid-years of 3.5 (savage tide) doesn't qualify as proper research by Xun standards.

while this is both the strength and weakness of an adventure path, that you're playing in a pseudo-interactive story, you only have slightly more leeway in how you handle the scenarios then your average console game. 

as for the quality of the books, i much rather like reading the clean black on white format of the WotC books then paizo's stylized form. i buy rulebooks to read them, not look at them and clarity is kind of a big deal for me. as for PDFs, i don't have a laptop so i could honestly care less about what BS was given or not. it hasn't affected my purchasing habits the slightest.

as for "listening to the community" i could honestly care less. but i don't buy a system for the parent company's PR. i buy a system because it works to help me create the game i want, not because the guys in charge pay lip service to a bunch of armchair devs. 4th ed is the system that actually does what i want. PF (and by extension, it's parent 3.5) isn't even on the list. 

as far as i'm concerned WotC is far more receptive of the community then Paizo is: they fixed 3.5 by killing it and building a new system. Paizo cast "animate dead" on the corpse, put on a hat of disguise to make it look fresh, cast prestidigitation to hide the smell and sold us a bill of goods saying they would fix the problems... which they didn't. 4th ed isn't perfect, but compared to what came before it, it's FAR better.
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
I love it when people post something snarky with no foundation, get an equally snarky response back to their snark, and than get all defensive about getting snarked.

Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Default module =/= Core mechanic.

other then the fact i've been playing PF for over a year now? i've played it and i'm wholly unimpressed, kinda pissed even since they said they'd try to solve the issues people had with 3.5... and to be honest, they've not solved any of the issues i've had with 3.5 and actually seemed to have made some of them worse by, for whatever reason, actually giving the wizard more options. the only reason i'm still playing it is because the group far more then makes up for the system's many shortcomings, and even this is starting to be less and less of an incentive. once this campaign is done, i'm done with 3.5 and it's offspring.

the campaigns and adventures they publish are ok, i'm not a fan of running modules but i can see why there is a demand, but it's been my experience that if you try to jump off the rails they either grind to a halt or end up being too easy. since it's an adventure "path" you're really not advised to leave from the rails should the modules go in a way you don't care for. 

unless, you know, one year of pathfinder and 2 years of another one of their adventure paths during the mid-years of 3.5 (savage tide) doesn't qualify as proper research by Xun standards.

while this is both the strength and weakness of an adventure path, that you're playing in a pseudo-interactive story, you only have slightly more leeway in how you handle the scenarios then your average console game. 

as for the quality of the books, i much rather like reading the clean black on white format of the WotC books then paizo's stylized form. i buy rulebooks to read them, not look at them and clarity is kind of a big deal for me. as for PDFs, i don't have a laptop so i could honestly care less about what BS was given or not. it hasn't affected my purchasing habits the slightest.

as for "listening to the community" i could honestly care less. but i don't buy a system for the parent company's PR. i buy a system because it works to help me create the game i want, not because the guys in charge pay lip service to a bunch of armchair devs. 4th ed is the system that actually does what i want. PF (and by extension, it's parent 3.5) isn't even on the list. 

as far as i'm concerned WotC is far more receptive of the community then Paizo is: they fixed 3.5 by killing it and building a new system. Paizo cast "animate dead" on the corpse, put on a hat of disguise to make it look fresh, cast prestidigitation to hide the smell and sold us a bill of goods saying they would fix the problems... which they didn't. 4th ed isn't perfect, but compared to what came before it, it's FAR better.



I can see you know how to find the Paizo website. Good job!
looks like you know how to make a non-sequitur. good job!
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
other then the fact i've been playing PF for over a year now? i've played it and i'm wholly unimpressed, kinda pissed even since they said they'd try to solve the issues people had with 3.5... and to be honest, they've not solved any of the issues i've had with 3.5 and actually seemed to have made some of them worse by, for whatever reason, actually giving the wizard more options. the only reason i'm still playing it is because the group far more then makes up for the system's many shortcomings, and even this is starting to be less and less of an incentive. once this campaign is done, i'm done with 3.5 and it's offspring.

So you have to play something for over a year now to be totally unimpressed?  What are the issues that you have with Pathfinder?

the campaigns and adventures they publish are ok, i'm not a fan of running modules but i can see why there is a demand, but it's been my experience that if you try to jump off the rails they either grind to a halt or end up being too easy. since it's an adventure "path" you're really not advised to leave from the rails should the modules go in a way you don't care for.

That goes for virtually any module.  That is what seperates a module from a homebrew.  Modules are meant to be a single focused adventure.

unless, you know, one year of pathfinder and 2 years of another one of their adventure paths during the mid-years of 3.5 (savage tide) doesn't qualify as proper research by Xun standards.

I'v ebeen playing Pathfinder since it came out, I have been playing 3rd edition since came and I currently own all the products.  We also have an ongoing Pathfinder game I play in.

while this is both the strength and weakness of an adventure path, that you're playing in a pseudo-interactive story, you only have slightly more leeway in how you handle the scenarios then your average console game.

See above.

as for the quality of the books, i much rather like reading the clean black on white format of the WotC books then paizo's stylized form. i buy rulebooks to read them, not look at them and clarity is kind of a big deal for me. as for PDFs, i don't have a laptop so i could honestly care less about what BS was given or not. it hasn't affected my purchasing habits the slightest.

If you were to actually read a Pathfinder book you you will see that it does have a white background behind most of the words.  The edge of the pages are stylized, but the background is white, well off white. What exactly causes your brain to malufunction to where you have trouble reading a Pathfinder book?

as for "listening to the community" i could honestly care less. but i don't buy a system for the parent company's PR. i buy a system because it works to help me create the game i want, not because the guys in charge pay lip service to a bunch of armchair devs. 4th ed is the system that actually does what i want. PF (and by extension, it's parent 3.5) isn't even on the list.

And listening to the community has served Paizo well.  I hate to break you but the designers don't know everything and it's the community that keeps the company in business.

as far as i'm concerned WotC is far more receptive of the community then Paizo is: they fixed 3.5 by killing it and building a new system. Paizo cast "animate dead" on the corpse, put on a hat of disguise to make it look fresh, cast prestidigitation to hide the smell and sold us a bill of goods saying they would fix the problems... which they didn't. 4th ed isn't perfect, but compared to what came before it, it's FAR better.

You came up with this opinion how?  Wizards seems to only listen when they are backed into a corner. Also, they try and use the D&D brand name to sell their products, not the quality. 

Point is, you can like what ever you like but you don't seem to have a correct grasp on Pathfinder.  





As I have said many, many times before, Pathfinder was designed specifically to please people who really enjoyed 3.5, faults and all. If you loved 3.5, you will love Pathfinder. If you hated certain aspects of 3.5 (casters being waaaay better than non-casters, certain spells just owning the damn game, the concept of hit dice and spell resistance, the fact that attack bonuses and spell DCs scaled faster than AC and saves did), you will not like Pathfinder, as none of that got changed.

How did this become another Pathfinder thread anyhow?