My fwiw kickstarter economic analysis regarding the rift between the traditionalists and evolutionists

[Uomoz]

4th have WAY more number tables then 3rd. Like 10 times more. It's combat is longer and harder. 3rd was way too simple imho.

[Nonek]

To be honest I could never go back to D&D after I made my own system, too many little niggles with all manner of systems. Tried my hand at fourth edition and stopped after I could get no definitive answer from the DM as to what a "healing surge" actually was. It did seem more suited to computer play than pen and paper though, the first melee we engaged in dragged on seemingly forever, really clunky.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Nonek

[Stiler]

I just don't get some people on the forums.

 

It seems there's quite a few very vocal people who are dead set against ANY modern element in the game. I almost wish that PE developers would develop the game in a 800x600 resolution with no widescreen support, no physics, no modern graphical effects of any kind, just to give them the game that they seem to want.

 

Meanwhile it seems for anyone that suggests anything that (outside of this game) would seem reasonable, hell even LIKED by most pc users, such as higher pov, zoomable camera, more customization for their characte,r they are labeleed as some kind of "bioware" fanboy and told to go back there.

 

You know what, did any o fthese people even play DA:O? AT the time it felt very much like a great updated pc focused party based rpg. It had a lot of throwback to classic rpgs but also more modern elements since technology has progressed since the 90's, and most "old school rpgers" liked it and even comment on the fact. Then DAII came out and it was a mess and a terrible game compared to DA:O.

 

I just don't get why it's bad to ENJOY classic rpgs, but understand we do not live in the 90's, we don't use 800x600 resolution screens anymore (some people might, but most do not) and technology has advanced. I see no reason you wouldn't want modern GOOD elements in the game along with the same classic "feel" in terms of style, gameplay, etc.

[ogrezilla]

I just don't get some people on the forums.

 

It seems there's quite a few very vocal people who are dead set against ANY modern element in the game. I almost wish that PE developers would develop the game in a 800x600 resolution with no widescreen support, no physics, no modern graphical effects of any kind, just to give them the game that they seem to want.

 

Meanwhile it seems for anyone that suggests anything that (outside of this game) would seem reasonable, hell even LIKED by most pc users, such as higher pov, zoomable camera, more customization for their characte,r they are labeleed as some kind of "bioware" fanboy and told to go back there.

 

You know what, did any o fthese people even play DA:O? AT the time it felt very much like a great updated pc focused party based rpg. It had a lot of throwback to classic rpgs but also more modern elements since technology has progressed since the 90's, and most "old school rpgers" liked it and even comment on the fact. Then DAII came out and it was a mess and a terrible game compared to DA:O.

 

I just don't get why it's bad to ENJOY classic rpgs, but understand we do not live in the 90's, we don't use 800x600 resolution screens anymore (some people might, but most do not) and technology has advanced. I see no reason you wouldn't want modern GOOD elements in the game along with the same classic "feel" in terms of style, gameplay, etc.

exactly. I've said it a few times. I want this game to feel like a classic, but I don't want it to feel old.

[NerdBoner]

man, i am soooo inaptly named compared to ~you people~...

 

I've never even played PnP...unless the P's stand for something else, hur hur hur!

 

 

so let me ask you this Metipoo, is the only thing that's really bothering you the potential fact that mages might not require sleep after combat or is there something else (Josh Sawyers smug face for example ) bothering you about P:E?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

So? It's known that PnP is dying, they are desperately trying to make money.

 

I'm not sure it's dying, from what I've seen personally there's a smaller but VERY dedicated market that is unlikely to go away anytime soon.

[Uomoz]

Well WotC tries to milk as much as possible its franchises (eg. excessive number of manuals), this means a lot of money commitment for the average player. I feel like it's a desperate move, but I may be wrong about it.

[Nonek]

I just don't get some people on the forums.

 

It seems there's quite a few very vocal people who are dead set against ANY modern element in the game. I almost wish that PE developers would develop the game in a 800x600 resolution with no widescreen support, no physics, no modern graphical effects of any kind, just to give them the game that they seem to want.

 

Meanwhile it seems for anyone that suggests anything that (outside of this game) would seem reasonable, hell even LIKED by most pc users, such as higher pov, zoomable camera, more customization for their characte,r they are labeleed as some kind of "bioware" fanboy and told to go back there.

 

You know what, did any o fthese people even play DA:O? AT the time it felt very much like a great updated pc focused party based rpg. It had a lot of throwback to classic rpgs but also more modern elements since technology has progressed since the 90's, and most "old school rpgers" liked it and even comment on the fact. Then DAII came out and it was a mess and a terrible game compared to DA:O.

 

I just don't get why it's bad to ENJOY classic rpgs, but understand we do not live in the 90's, we don't use 800x600 resolution screens anymore (some people might, but most do not) and technology has advanced. I see no reason you wouldn't want modern GOOD elements in the game along with the same classic "feel" in terms of style, gameplay, etc.

 

Well it's easy to understand their viewpoint for me, play an old game like Ultima 7 and tot up everything you can do in that game and then compare it to Dragon Age : Origins. You're left with an unavoidable conclusion, except for the graphic options and how pretty you can make your avatar (and sometimes combat,) games have been devolving in almost every way since the late 90's. Too much aiming for the lowest common denominator has rendered them into simplified combat and conversation in corridor simulators, with no real life or complexity outside those two functions.

 

Personally I feel that Metimans fear are unjustified, Mr Cain will give us a deep and strategical system as he (and Obsidian) has proved in their previous games, but I can empathise with the mans viewpoint.

[metiman]

4th have WAY more number tables then 3rd. Like 10 times more. It's combat is longer and harder. 3rd was way too simple imho.

 

If that's truly the case then I would have no problem with it for pnp, but I read otherwise. I'm not thrilled with the whole at will, per encounter, and daily system though. It seems half baked to me.

[ogrezilla]

4th have WAY more number tables then 3rd. Like 10 times more. It's combat is longer and harder. 3rd was way too simple imho.

 

If that's truly the case then I would have no problem with it for pnp, but I read otherwise. I'm not thrilled with the whole at will, per encounter, and daily system though. It seems half baked to me.

its like 3 weeks into development. It literally IS half baked. It's not finished yet.

Edited October 7, 2012 by ogrezilla

[metiman]

man, i am soooo inaptly named compared to ~you people~...

 

I've never even played PnP...unless the P's stand for something else, hur hur hur!

 

 

so let me ask you this Metipoo, is the only thing that's really bothering you the potential fact that mages might not require sleep after combat or is there something else (Josh Sawyers smug face for example ) bothering you about P:E?

 

How old are you? Am I talking to a 10 year old or something. Even your username seems to indicate this. I dont have a problem with that, but I would like to know.

 

It's not the sleep issue per se. It's the idea of mages resetting some important spells between (or even during) encounters. It's not clear to me at the moment how powerful such spells will be, so it's kind of difficult to really discuss the issue, but my concern is that this will remove some of the attrition mechanic between encounters for certain spells. If the spells are sufficiently weak then it's not such a big deal I guess, but if they aren't then I just don't think it will be fun to play like that.

[Merin]

^ It's tanking. 5th Ed has come around with indecent haste.

 

It's not tanking in the sense you mean.

 

For one, the company as a whole made several really bad calls. One, they ended their skirmish game support for their mini's. I never played the skirmish game, but they cut out half the reason for getting the figures. Two, they introduced stupid products like the pre-printed power cards (which, yes, looked cool, but if you ever tried to use them you'll realize quickly why they aren't useful) and very expensive dice sets. Three, they killed their magazines and placed them behind a pay-wall - that paywall, DDI, being the biggest mistake of all. Four, they left a HUGE opening with OGL for hard-core 3E fans to not have to try to adjust to 4E - ergo, Pathfinder for the 4E haters.

 

All of those blunders ended up "coinciding with" (I'm not saying caused, but it's certainly possible they did cause) some shake-ups in the people in charge. Different designers get in charge, they have different visions. Look at DA:O to DA2 for a prime example. Different people in charge have different design ideas.

 

WotC was doing fine, sales wise, with 4E. Yes, Pathfinder grew to out sell it at times - but if you look at those times, 4E hadn't released books for a long time and therefore a big glut was open for new Pathfinder books to continue excitement. But the misstep of Essentials (not a tragic misstep, but a wholly unnecessary one) was followed by a driving desire (and this was absolutely wrongheaded) to "win back" 3E fans.

 

Now, realize, I'm not defending WotC - it should be clear that I'm pretty close to bashing it openly. From 3E forward, with the exception of finding some of the mechanics and design aspects of 4E actually to be quite good.

 

And... this is quite the thread derail...

(checks the OP.... remembers that Mods are quite laissez faire here)

... never mind, let's continue the discussion!

[metiman]

4th have WAY more number tables then 3rd. Like 10 times more. It's combat is longer and harder. 3rd was way too simple imho.

 

If that's truly the case then I would have no problem with it for pnp, but I read otherwise. I'm not thrilled with the whole at will, per encounter, and daily system though. It seems half baked to me.

its like 3 weeks into development. It literally IS half baked. It's not finished yet.

 

I was referring to 4E as a PnP system. Not with respect to its influence on PE.

[Uomoz]

I think powerful magic will require resource management in various form (long CD inside combat and rest for the class-defining powerful stuff). The new idea is to let magic have some form of basic attack (like magic missiles) that is always available, like it is in D&d 4th.

 

EDIT: the idea of at-will \ encounter\ daily IS half-baked and not realistic. Yet this form is still way better then the old vancian imho. I think the idea is good and with Obsidian-quality refinement could translate in an amazing chess-like-oldstyle combat experience.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Uomoz

[ogrezilla]

4th have WAY more number tables then 3rd. Like 10 times more. It's combat is longer and harder. 3rd was way too simple imho.

 

If that's truly the case then I would have no problem with it for pnp, but I read otherwise. I'm not thrilled with the whole at will, per encounter, and daily system though. It seems half baked to me.

its like 3 weeks into development. It literally IS half baked. It's not finished yet.

 

I was referring to 4E as a PnP system. Not with respect to its influence on PE.

ah my bad. just woke up and skipped a page in there I think.

Edited October 7, 2012 by ogrezilla

[NerdBoner]

How old are you? Am I talking to a 10 year old or something. Even your username seems to indicate this. I dont have a problem with that, but I would like to know.

I'm like an elf man, I age 10 times slower than most people.

It's not the sleep issue per se. It's the idea of mages resetting some important spells between (or even during) encounters. It's not clear to me at the moment how powerful such spells will be, so it's kind of difficult to really discuss the issue, but my concern is that this will remove some of the attrition mechanic between encounters for certain spells. If the spells are sufficiently weak then it's not such a big deal I guess, but if they aren't then I just don't think it will be fun to play like that.

from everything I've read, that you've posted, it just seems to me like you're someone who is TERRIFIED of trying something new...do you seriously believe that even at high levels we'll be able to just spam spells like "time stop" and "summon planetar"?

 

because I have to tell you, those fears seem rather unfounded. This is a game catering to people who like the old classics, but most of us also understand that certain "updates" have to be made...it's not 1998 and sleeping inside dungeons was ALWAYS a stupid idea. (am I supposed to believe the horde of monsters in the next room would allow that?)

 

 

am i against a sleep mechanic? no, i'm actually for it...when it makes sense. Besides, Vancian magic is just that, a system imagined by an author (Señor Vance) a long time ago... is everyone supposed to be beholden to that for all time?

 

can we not see if something else can be better before we cast it down into the abyss of "unplayability"?

Edited October 7, 2012 by NerdBoner

[ravenshrike]

So? It's known that PnP is dying, they are desperately trying to make money.

 

EDIT: Merin, stand strong.

Sorry, but Pathfinder has been kicking the crap out of 4th ed for the past year and a half or so and shows little signs of flagging. Considering it only took 2 and a half years to go from zero to that point and took virtually all it's marketshare(There have been some diehards actually switching over from 2nd ed, but that's a minority of a minority) from 3.X and 4th ed players that's pretty damned impressive.

 

Part of it is book design. 4th ed hardcover books are a small amount of crunch and a medium amount of exposition in virtually every book outside of the player handbooks, and even the player handbooks are only a medium amount of crunch. Pathfinder hardcover books on the other hand come in either crunch or exposition outside of the first book, which is both the basic DM guide and player handbook all in one. So you only need buy the exposition books for the settings you want, and all your other purchases will be pure crunch.

Obviously the above doesn't apply to adventure paths.

[Cantousent]

Please cite where I said I was going to pirate the game. I think piracy is wrong and would never engage in such a vile pursuit. Oh sorry. Do facts make your arguments more difficult?

I would normally just send a PM, but having called you out publicly on this issue I'd like to respond publicly. I take you at your word and concede that perhaps I was too hasty in my initial response.

[Gatt9]

^ It's tanking. 5th Ed has come around with indecent haste.

 

It's not tanking in the sense you mean.

 

For one, the company as a whole made several really bad calls. One, they ended their skirmish game support for their mini's. I never played the skirmish game, but they cut out half the reason for getting the figures. Two, they introduced stupid products like the pre-printed power cards (which, yes, looked cool, but if you ever tried to use them you'll realize quickly why they aren't useful) and very expensive dice sets. Three, they killed their magazines and placed them behind a pay-wall - that paywall, DDI, being the biggest mistake of all. Four, they left a HUGE opening with OGL for hard-core 3E fans to not have to try to adjust to 4E - ergo, Pathfinder for the 4E haters.

 

All of those blunders ended up "coinciding with" (I'm not saying caused, but it's certainly possible they did cause) some shake-ups in the people in charge. Different designers get in charge, they have different visions. Look at DA:O to DA2 for a prime example. Different people in charge have different design ideas.

 

WotC was doing fine, sales wise, with 4E. Yes, Pathfinder grew to out sell it at times - but if you look at those times, 4E hadn't released books for a long time and therefore a big glut was open for new Pathfinder books to continue excitement. But the misstep of Essentials (not a tragic misstep, but a wholly unnecessary one) was followed by a driving desire (and this was absolutely wrongheaded) to "win back" 3E fans.

 

 

Actually, it was always doing really bad. WOTC just didn't want to publicly admit it. You could find very knowledgeable insiders who would go on record, on the net, as saying 4th edition was not doing well. But my favorite one was the European store that went to the forums to beg WOTC to look into a EU distributer who'd been on backorder for 6 months, 6 months with no product at a major distributer, and no one even noticed.

 

4th edition never took off as a product, and wasn't going to. It used the Bethesda approach "We don't need you nasty old fans, we're going to change everything and we'll have 10x as many new fans!". Predictably, it didn't go so well.

 

WOTC had only one option, and that was to walk away from 4th edition. Every other choice meant burying D&D. WOTC took careful steps to hide this, such as making their forums openly hostile to non-4th edition fans, and then warning non-4th edition fans if they posted responded. But if you ventured outside of the WOTC ecosystem, it was obvious that 4th edition was toxic.

[Monte Carlo]

Hey, look on the bright side. 5th Edition couldn't be any worse... could it?

[RosesandAshes]

I guess I'm a Biowarian, I'm 26, never played a PnP game, like BioWare's RPGs, been playing the IE games recently. (Although I'm taking a break from DnD based games to play Arcanum.)

 

I like the direction that PE is going. I'm not expecting that it'll be an exact copy of my favourite IE game (which right now would be PS:T) but I am expecting that it will take what was great about those games with a bit of innovation here and there, otherwise all we get is an enhanced port of BG, and I have regular BG if I want that.

[Uomoz]

Hey, look on the bright side. 5th Edition couldn't be any worse... could it?

 

They are going back to 3rd so it will be worse.

[Merin]

4th edition never took off as a product, and wasn't going to. It used the Bethesda approach "We don't need you nasty old fans, we're going to change everything and we'll have 10x as many new fans!". Predictably, it didn't go so well.

 

I think you are confused. This is what happened with 2nd ED. Upset fans, ones who never went back to D&D, TSR burrying...

no, no, wait - that was 3rd. WotC buys TSR, changes the game horribly, D&D fans not happy and never come back...

no, wait, it was 4th...

no,no, wait... it's 5th.

 

This happens each addition. New company or not.

 

I find it extremely funny, the 3E fans, who say how WotC ruined it with 4. The same company. Which, in it's previous edition, drastically changed the game.

 

Just admit - you like 3E. You didn't want it to change from that.

 

Everything else is hyperbolic "my team vs. there team" nonsense.

 

I should have known better than to get into this "discussion." It's as bad as most other topics on here, like Vancian.

 

I'm so tired of the snide comments and insults. Carry on the 4E bashing to your hearts content.

[Monte Carlo]

Hey, look on the bright side. 5th Edition couldn't be any worse... could it?

 

They are going back to 3rd so it will be worse.

 

Are they? I'm hazy on the details I thought it was a sort of mix-and-match deal. Could you elaborate please?

[Monte Carlo]

4th edition never took off as a product, and wasn't going to. It used the Bethesda approach "We don't need you nasty old fans, we're going to change everything and we'll have 10x as many new fans!". Predictably, it didn't go so well.

 

I think you are confused. This is what happened with 2nd ED. Upset fans, ones who never went back to D&D, TSR burrying...

no, no, wait - that was 3rd. WotC buys TSR, changes the game horribly, D&D fans not happy and never come back...

no, wait, it was 4th...

no,no, wait... it's 5th.

 

This happens each addition. New company or not.

 

I find it extremely funny, the 3E fans, who say how WotC ruined it with 4. The same company. Which, in it's previous edition, drastically changed the game.

 

Just admit - you like 3E. You didn't want it to change from that.

 

Everything else is hyperbolic "my team vs. there team" nonsense.

 

I should have known better than to get into this "discussion." It's as bad as most other topics on here, like Vancian.

 

I'm so tired of the snide comments and insults. Carry on the 4E bashing to your hearts content.

 

Dude, stop being so thin-skinned. Please.

 

FWIW I loved 3E. I embraced the changes happily, so did a lot of people. Now, I remember OD&D to 1E AD&D. That *was* bloody

Edited October 7, 2012 by Monte Carlo