Community

Apr 13, 2012 -- 10:37AM, wrecan wrote:

Emerikol, I like you.  You're a smart guy, and I don't care that we disagree on like 90% of the stuff that happens around here.  But you keep doing stuff that makes you look like an egotist.  And one of those things is citing your gut as a reason that your argument should be given credence.

Wrecan, your standard for discussion is ridiculously high.  You could just say - I don't agree and don't get that feeling myself.  I think the truth is that you do get that feeling.  It's pretty hard not to reading the boards.  I'm not saying I'm absolutely certain 100%.  But that is a ridiculous standard.  If I could bet some money on it being true then I'd be up for it.  And at this level of confidence I'd be a sure money maker in nine out of ten cases.  But yeah I could theoretically be wrong because I haven't commissioned a poll and asked thousands of people.

@everyone else
My point is well made even if Pathfinder were at 30% and D&D at 70%.  I think thats a pretty wide margin of error.  I don't even play pathfinder.  I'm viewing them as a competitor to D&D and since we have one now we better get competing.  And I'm not saying make a Pathfinder knock off either.  What I am saying is that we need something better that appeals across a wider group than just the current 4e crew.  And of course they want to keep the current people too.  

The problem is they've kept all the people that don't care about realism (and some that do I'm sure).  All I'm saying is that they lost a lot for that reason.  Can I prove that without a trace of doubt?  No.  Like I said to wrecan above I'd love to take that bet.  The boards are snowed under with these kinds of complaints.  Just open your minds and be willing to give the other side some love along with getting some yourself.  Ignoring the other side though will leave you right where you at right now.  Whether you are happy or not though I'm sure WOTC wants those lost players back.  I'm glad about that.







 

Apr 13, 2012 -- 5:30PM, Naki wrote:

Apr 13, 2012 -- 5:14PM, Emerikol wrote:

I'm viewing them as a competitor to D&D and since we have one now we better get competing.  And I'm not saying make a Pathfinder knock off either. 

This is a fallacy. I have interest in both, and have invested in both in the past. The only thing Pathfinder competes for is your time, because you don't have to pay into it. The SRD is why. One can play Pathfinder and D&D and enjoy both.

Pathfinder is a competitor to D&D in the same way Dragon Age is. Or Dark Heresy. It competes for your time spent on it. If someone is going to play these games, they are likely to spend the money on both as they are on one or the other.

Thats true.  I own the basic Pathfinder book but nothing else.  I'm sure if I got into Pathfinder I would buy more stuff.  I have more 4e stuff but now that I don't like it I won't buy more.  So obviously there is a vested interest in keeping gamers playing your game so they at least have a better chance of buying your next big thing for the game.  I mean your point is valid I'm not disagreeing.  But there are plenty who play just one or the other also.  Those people playing only game Pathfinder are at least candidates for 5e.

I know that consumption in rpgs is not as steady as say cola products.  I mean I buy a coke sometimes and I buy a pepsi sometimes.  Both companies want me to buy their product all the time.  I probably do tend towards one over the other (mostly for my home).   Still I think the concept applies to people on both sides.  The better a game pulls them in the more they'll spend on that game.  Thats at least the way to predict.  There will always be exceptions of course.

@ogiwan
There are things I llike and don't like about the warlord.  I'd probably have taken the good parts and given them to the fighter and just dropped the bad parts.  I'm not pro-martial healing.  I do think hit points are more than just physical but I can't escape that there is some physical mixed in at all levels.  So it's not just the last hit point that is physical.  

@ed_warlord
 I think it's fine to want or not want something in the groups you play in as long as you are open minded about the game as a whole for the entire playerbase.  I'm definitely inclusive game wide.  I'm exclusive about some things in the games I play.  I will admit 4e crystalized a few things for me that I couldn't put my finger on before.  I never liked hero points in some games but I never really knew why until I fully understood some of the issues.  Now I know.

 

Apr 13, 2012 -- 10:24PM, Ed_Warlord wrote:

Apr 13, 2012 -- 7:48PM, Emerikol wrote:

 I think it's fine to want or not want something in the groups you play in as long as you are open minded about the game as a whole for the entire playerbase.  I'm definitely inclusive game wide. 

Then why do you argue so strongly against things you dislike, rather than simply for things you do like?   

Like that 'plot coupon' thing.  OK, you hate plot coupons, which only seem to come up with martial dailies.  So don't use them.  There are only 4 martial classes, you can play any role without using a martial class.   What the guy accross from you enjoys playing shouldn't ruin your fun.  

I've already experienced the exclusionary approach at Encounters.  Some DMs want to run exactly to the guidelines, so you're restricted to playing certain classes, which never include my new favorite class.  If 5e is going to be inclusive and appeal to everyone it shouldn't keep doing things like that.  Lair Assault is more fun in that sense, because you can play anything.   

Before I start, let me say.  I don't play casual one night game shop D&D.  It's more a wargame at that point and it's a great way to introduce people to the game.  So of course if I were WOTC or the gameshop then I would run encounters using the wide open totally inclusive RAW.  Sames goes for living "whatever".  When I am discussing groups etc.. I am talking about year+ long home games around the table.  So if there is some confusion there on that point sorry.  I just assumed.

On to next part:
I've made this point in a few others places so maybe I'm hammering a dead horse but let me explain my position again.  

I have not argued that something someone elses option should not be there.   I'm arguing for the inclusion of my option thats all.  I would like some pure martial classes in my games like the fighter and rogue.  I mean I had that option in 1e,2e,3e and it wasn't crushing my immersion.  I agree that extra classes that do this can just be ignored and I'm for that.   

Now for a home group.  Anything that is immersion busting is going to be so regardless of who at the table is doing it.  If the warlord is healing and someone doesn't like that then it's going to bug them regardless of who is playing the class.  In those situations groups need to decide the style of play they will have at the table.   For me I just write up a campaign as DM with all houserules and restrictions in place and then have people sign up for the game.  When I can't get 5 players to sign up then I'll have to reconsider but so far that hasn't been a problem.  For the real deal breakers though, I'd prefer to not play as play with them.  But thats me.  I'd rather watch tv, read a book, play a video game, play a different rpg, etc.. etc.. etc... than play 4e or be in a group that has martial healing and martial dailies.  I'm being polite by being up front in my tastes.  If someone else hates Vancian wizards I would understand them not playing in my campaign.  I might play in theirs if that was the only conflict I had with them because I can live with or without vancian wizards.  It's not a deal breaker.   I hope that clears up my position.