Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I find the idea that "fan ideas ruin everything, companies should never listen to the man on the street!" quite amusing. Especially in games with so much house-ruling as D&D. But hey, if it makes you happy...

Ahtman wrote:
That is nice, but can you give us an example of a fan with a good idea?

Hmm... Ed Greenwood? You know, creator of Forgotten Realms?

Ahtman wrote:
That is a bad idea. I know they idea of rehashing 3.0/3.5 until we die is comforting but if the license goes away from WotC (and I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea) it should go somewhere that will give it a completely different take on the material. I'm a firm believer that if you are going to go through through the trouble of redoing something, and announcing it to the world, it should actually be different and not just tweeks. I would rather see them go head first into a wall with some radical and interesting ideas then shoot for mediocrity and nostalgia. Listening to fans is usually a no win for creative endeavors. If you go by trying to please fans you end up with Spider-Man 3*, not the Dark Knight. If the studio hadn't forced Raimi to put in Venom to make the fan base happy I think it would have been a very good movie, and if Nolan had listened to fans Ledger never would have been Joker. They need to have a vision and direction, not try to build it by committee from one of the most diverse and asinine groups out there. I have heard PF people say that Paizo didn't listen to much of the beta test feedback either, but I can only imagine some of the goofiness that any game company would get in their suggestion box. They shouldn't put it out there and pretend to take feedback becuase like others, I doubt it will be more than an illusion of inclusion. Do what GW did (or didn't) leak a play test and see what happens.

If you're opposed to game design by committee, you obviously need to stop playing the following right away: D&D (going back to 1st ed), Anything by GW, anything by FFG, anything..well, pretty much anything in print and a whole lot of stuff that is OOP. There's one guy with his name in big letters, but if you open the book and look, you'll find that there are a bunch of other names after that who are the other writers of the book, though sometimes they just get a 'Special Thanks To...' (which, btw: SUCKS.)

Paizo is actually one of the few for whom this is an exception, not the rule for their products, with, IIRC, only the Core books for Pathfinder having been done that way.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
That is nice, but can you give us an example of a fan with a good idea?

Hmm... Ed Greenwood? You know, creator of Forgotten Realms?

Ahtman wrote:
That is a bad idea. I know they idea of rehashing 3.0/3.5 until we die is comforting but if the license goes away from WotC (and I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea) it should go somewhere that will give it a completely different take on the material. I'm a firm believer that if you are going to go through through the trouble of redoing something, and announcing it to the world, it should actually be different and not just tweeks. I would rather see them go head first into a wall with some radical and interesting ideas then shoot for mediocrity and nostalgia. Listening to fans is usually a no win for creative endeavors. If you go by trying to please fans you end up with Spider-Man 3*, not the Dark Knight. If the studio hadn't forced Raimi to put in Venom to make the fan base happy I think it would have been a very good movie, and if Nolan had listened to fans Ledger never would have been Joker. They need to have a vision and direction, not try to build it by committee from one of the most diverse and asinine groups out there. I have heard PF people say that Paizo didn't listen to much of the beta test feedback either, but I can only imagine some of the goofiness that any game company would get in their suggestion box. They shouldn't put it out there and pretend to take feedback becuase like others, I doubt it will be more than an illusion of inclusion. Do what GW did (or didn't) leak a play test and see what happens.

If you're opposed to game design by committee, you obviously need to stop playing the following right away: D&D (going back to 1st ed), Anything by GW, anything by FFG, anything..well, pretty much anything in print and a whole lot of stuff that is OOP. There's one guy with his name in big letters, but if you open the book and look, you'll find that there are a bunch of other names after that who are the other writers of the book, though sometimes they just get a 'Special Thanks To...' (which, btw: SUCKS.)

Paizo is actually one of the few for whom this is an exception, not the rule for their products, with, IIRC, only the Core books for Pathfinder having been done that way.

Ed Greenwood and Forgotten Realms represents everything that is wrong with the game.

EN World Article wrote:Settings

The Forgotten Realms will be supported from the start, and a video game art studio from China has been hired to fully detail the Realms.

Can't say this fills me with a ton of confidence. There is already so much out there for the Forgotten Realms setting. I just hope that it doesn't end up too manga/Final Fantay-ized. Not that there is anything wrong inherently with those styles, I just don't want to see it in the Forgotten Realms.

KGatch113 wrote:Ed Greenwood and Forgotten Realms represents everything that is wrong with the game.

Care to elaborate? I'm genuinely curious as to what you mean.



I would love to see a good return to Athas and the Dark Sun setting. That was one of my all-time favorite settings for D&D. It was very different at the time, and the artwork by Brom is still some of my favorite.

~Eric

Neat. Probably not enough to get me back into the game, but should be cool.

What are they supposed to do with all the existing 4th edition books? Will they work this edition? I know that almost all 3rd edition books didn't work with 4th..

Personally I've always hated Forgotten Realms' setting.

The fact that there are already a high number of high level characters who pretty much have already done everything makes it pretty much clear that all you are is a waterboy and anything you do is something they really can't be asked to do.

I loved Eberron because it was still developing and you as a player could still influence it. That's important in this sort of game as you really want your players to feel that they matter and are important. Players are the 'stars' of the show as it were so the whole FR setting just grates horribly for the amount of Deus Ex within.

Forgetten Realms at it's best was a pretty good 'catch all/alternate earth[/i] setting. By catch-all, I mean that it could conceivably have everything in it without any real issue. For the other side of this, take Dragonlance. Messing with Dragonlance's magic 'rules' such as adding Warlocks would be messy as there would be a need to explain where the new magical tradition comes from. in the Forgotten Realms, it's a lot more 'open' that Warlocks could be a new method of accessing magical powers.

Personally, I'd like to see WotC support 2 settings at a time in 'detail' for 5th. One should be FR or possible Nettir Vale (the setting that was originally called 'PoLand' that is the setting implied in 4th edition books). This should be kept very open and is designed as a loose setting for material that can be slotted into other settings easier.

For the second setting, I'd like each year or two to have one setting that is created (or revived) and given an intense series of books that has a plotline. Dragonlance in the 80s would have been perfect for this. Don't do "Adventure int he Dragonlance world.' Do 'Adventure during the War of the Lance.' Make the 2nd setting an event focused hybrid of the 'adventure paths' and traditional setting books.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
FR at it's worse could get bogged down with novel characters and other big NPCs, but in general "don't use them" is a way for GMs to deal with that problem.

I remember when 4e released... Myself and 4 buddies all booked the day off and bought the 4e rulebooks, read through them and gave them a play through... we played for two weeks before promptly returning back to the 3.5 system (I had the Paizo Pathfinder Beta book so we played that).

We had a new member join the table and he bought the 4e books so we decided to give it another, honest shot.

After 2 months of playing, we quit it entirely - our dm didn't mind it so much, but did agree it felt better on play by post / online vs at a table with people.

The problem we all had with it is you were very pigeon holed into your role based on the class you chose. The variation and selection of "abilities" was awful. You could chose 1-3 spells / abilities that were super powerful at that level, and the rest that were extremely bland, so every character playing that class would end up taking the exact same thing just to stay competitive.

When Pathfinder core rulebook came out, I snatched that right up, and that is a hefty tome, it is what a handbook should be. 4e books felt double spaced, large font ... something a high school kid would do to make it look more complete, whereas Pathfinder felt very engaged and detailed.

I appreciate Paizo also made taking full 20 level progression in a core class VERY appealing vs the class / prestige class dipping and optimizing that wotc's 3.5 had. I can make the character I WANT without being limited to abilities. Gish's seemed impossible in 4e whereas in Pathfinder, it's extremely easy to make multiple gish builds and have them fun to play at all levels.

When 5e drops, I'll thumb through it, but 4e left a very, VERY sour taste in my mouth and aside from abandoning the "D&D" name, I have no regrets sticking to Paizo.

KGatch113 wrote:Ed Greenwood and Forgotten Realms represents everything that is wrong with the game.

Ok... yeah, can you elaborate on that?

Breotan wrote:Meh. I bailed out when 3rd Edition hit because of the 'feats'. No desire to play a pen & paper video game.

Feats are not like a "a pen & paper video game"

Like anything they took a little getting used to, but overall they were a good change.

now, 4th ed, that is "a pen & paper video game" Tanks, DPS, and Healers, its crazy.

DeathReaper wrote:

Breotan wrote:Meh. I bailed out when 3rd Edition hit because of the 'feats'. No desire to play a pen & paper video game.

Feats are not like a "a pen & paper video game"

Like anything they took a little getting used to, but overall they were a good change.

now, 4th ed, that is "a pen & paper video game" Tanks, DPS, and Healers, its crazy.

I can't tell if this is satire or self delusion.

It's going to be impossible now for them to regain the trust of the players they've alienated. For the record, the term "Power gamer" is, and always has been, derogatory.

D and D will always be red, blue and green box for me.

I began with the old school color box, but started with one of my old pals with his blue/black colored book when they first started selling it in a box.

I'm not a real fan of the way in which D and D was mutated into the conglomerate BS that it became.


Stripped down, easy to play, and easy to get into with a few pals with a couple of cases of Jolt and a fare DM were a good weekend that can never be touched by adding on bells and whistles.


wish them well, but won't even give it a look.

As with others, a return to what was right is all thats needed for D and D.

Red Box. Dungeon masters guide, Players guide, Monster manual 1 and 2 and Fiend Folio. the other boxes were fine, but really not needed. Excellent game, I miss it alot.


Pardon me while I go crank up some RUSH, and kick a hole in my wall.

BaronIveagh wrote:

KGatch113 wrote:Ed Greenwood and Forgotten Realms represents everything that is wrong with the game.

Ok... yeah, can you elaborate on that?

Seems like someone's character was pwned by a DM using Drizzt's stats.

Seriously, if you think the high level characters are a problem in a game with a history like that in Forgotten Realms you have the problem not the game. Many of those characters are PCs from games that have been going on longer than most of the kids that have been alive. Salvatore still meets with his RPG group once a month to play characters like Drizzt. That is just the way it is.

It would be like someone complaining about roleplaying a Jedi character in the Star Wars D6 game when Luke is still alive. If they want their character to be top dog then they need to work their way up in power through many game sessions or fast forward the game 500 years to where everyone else is dead.

Ahtman wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Feats are not like a "a pen & paper video game"

Like anything they took a little getting used to, but overall they were a good change.

now, 4th ed, that is "a pen & paper video game" Tanks, DPS, and Healers, its crazy.

I can't tell if this is satire or self delusion.

It is neither.

I have played D&D since 2nd ed, and 3rd ed did not seem like playing a video game in comparison to 2nd ed.

4th Does feel like playing a video game, since they have tank classes that can mark enemies, which debuffs the enemy if they do not attack the tank. they have a dedicated healer taht can not do much in the way of damage, they have strikers which are your DPS etc. 3rd did not have any of this, all characters could deal good damage, and no one was forced into any one role based on what class you were playing.

DeathReaper wrote:4th Does feel like playing a video game...

For me personally, it's worse. It feels like playing a minis game with MMO design aesthetic that borrows CCG mechanics, which is frankly what I think they were ultimately going for. While that sounds great and quite profitable in theory, it didn't seem to resonate with a large portion of their existing player base. I simply wanted an RPG and it didn't deliver for anyone in my varied group of gamers (with 1-15+ years of tabletop experience). The breaking point for us was a WOTC published adventure where we took on several 30-40hp kobolds plus minions in one encounter lasting over an hour and a half... there was no way barring extremely unlikely rolls that we would have lost but no way for us to win after 1.5 hours unless we put in another 30-40 minutes.

Normally, being the sort of GM into TPK, I'd like 4e, but I don't. Anything that forces players into dedicated rolls (and yes, that was both derogatory and deliberate) rather than being a 'squad of ultimate badasses' I feel is a waste of time. I mean, seriously, 4e discards rule 0.5 of roleplaying: Have Fun. If the party wipes because I will it, that's one thing. If the party wipes because no one wants to play a cleric because you don't do anything other then spam group heals the entire time, that's another ball game.

DeathReaper wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Feats are not like a "a pen & paper video game"

Like anything they took a little getting used to, but overall they were a good change.

now, 4th ed, that is "a pen & paper video game" Tanks, DPS, and Healers, its crazy.

I can't tell if this is satire or self delusion.

It is neither.

I have played D&D since 2nd ed, and 3rd ed did not seem like playing a video game in comparison to 2nd ed.

Well whoopty do, so have I. Started with the original Red Box and went from there. That is neither here nor there. So it is delusion, thank you for the prompt response.

BaronIveagh wrote:Normally, being the sort of GM into TPK, I'd like 4e, but I don't. Anything that forces players into dedicated rolls (and yes, that was both derogatory and deliberate) rather than being a 'squad of ultimate badasses' I feel is a waste of time. I mean, seriously, 4e discards rule 0.5 of roleplaying: Have Fun. If the party wipes because I will it, that's one thing. If the party wipes because no one wants to play a cleric because you don't do anything other then spam group heals the entire time, that's another ball game.

That's the biggest load of crap ever. "Discards the rule of have fun"? Freaking REALLY? Just because YOU don't like it that doesn't mean it isn't fun. I've gotten plenty of people into 4e that loved it who had never looked twice at roleplaying before. Many of them later got into other "real" RPGs. 4e is a fantastic game, it's just not D&D. THAT is the only true problem with 4e, it simply isn't an RPG worthy of being called a new edition of D&D, it should have been marketed as a completely different game. It's a miniatures game with a hefty story element. That doesn't make it a bad game, it just makes it a bad successor to the title. Huge difference.

And that thing about "dedicated rolls" is just flat out wrong. You had healers and a tanks and strikers in 3.5 just as much as you do in 4e, the only difference is that in 3.5 you picked a basic class and built them to fit that role via feats and equipments and spell choice. 4e you do it by picking a particular class with that role predetermined. You pick the class that matches what you want to do instead of molding a more generic character into that role. That makes it easier to play, but I'll admit a large part of the fun for most people is customizing your character to match what they should do in your mind's eye, and customizability is something 4e severely lacks compared to "proper" RPGs.

Ahtman wrote:
Well whoopty do, so have I. Started with the original Red Box and went from there. That is neither here nor there. So it is delusion, thank you for the prompt response.

Your ignorance is yet again only rivalled by your completely unneccessary aggression as you gloss over the salient points in his posts in favor of trolling with insults. If there is any delusion in this thread, it is your own inability to see the obvious MMO/video game influences on 4e.

warboss wrote:Your ignorance is yet again only rivalled by your completely unneccessary aggression as you gloss over the salient points in his posts in favor of trolling with insults

Oh please, if you are going to get on your high horse at least attempt to not do the thing you are arguing against.

warboss wrote:as you gloss over the salient points in his posts in favor of trolling with insults

Did you not read the posts? The inability to recognize they are making the same arguments that 4e people make when 3.5 is accused of being video game like as well. When 3e was launched it was accused of being to much like a video game as well. Don't be made becuase I see the humor in history repeating itself.

warboss wrote:(similar to earlier in the thread where you claimed no evidence of 4e being anything but a success).

If you are going to bring it up at least get it right. I didn't respond becuase I felt it best just to let the whole thing drop. Did you know that sometimes people don't post on the internet becuase they can't be arsed, not just becuase they think they are wrong? Since you want to bring it back up though, the only one that was all useful was the store owners stat, but that still doesn't tell everything. The rest were bits and pieces of information that are positive individually but don't tell the whole picture, like blind men feeling an elephant. Knowing that PF outsold D&D for a month on Amazon only tells us about one month and on Amazon, not every online source. What if that month D&D outsold PF on Troll and Toad? They also didn't take into account alternate revenue streams like DDi subscriptions. In the end though we can't know overall the comparison becuase the overall numbers aren't released. Saying with certainty that PF is absolutely outselling D&D is not something we know, unless you have insider knowledge of both companies. You also seemed to miss where I said, especially after Essentials, that I thought PF was probably doing better on book sales.

warboss wrote:If there is any delusion in this thread, it is your own inability to see the obvious MMO/video game influences on 4e.

They have had as much influence on PnP as PnP has had on them. The delusion is pretending that it impossible to see how video games influenced 3e while frothing at the mouth that they may have influenced another system. I also don't understand why being influenced by something is the most hellish thing in the world. Everything is influenced by something.

The other pattern is that people act like defending 4e from silly arguments must mean that one thinks that 4e is beyond criticism and that they must hate 3.5/4e. It doesn't mean that at all, but it is a common mistake. I don't mind people not liking any system as they aren't all for everyone. I have heard good criticism of 4e, and I've leveled some at it myself, but I haven't seen any in this thread. Most of the arguments boil down to "herp derp MMO" and "It isn't 3.5".

Ahtman wrote:Did you not read the posts? The inability to recognize they are making the same arguments that 4e people make when 3.5 is accused of being video game like as well. When 3e was launched it was accused of being to much like a video game as well. Don't be made becuase I see the humor in history repeating itself.

I did read them as well as your initial one line trolling response that you chose to follow up with *surprise!* another one line trolling response. Only now after being called out are you finally bothering to explain your opinion as well as address the issues brought up in that post (something you should have done in the first place if you're bothering to respond). The proper response to an opinion you disagree with is not calling the person delusional but to state your own with something to back it up.

And to mimic your own tone and posting style... where is the evidence that there was a general feeling of 3.5 being like a video game or are you simply just delusional? I've been active on the internet since Netscape had its beta and actively followed D&D forums during 3/3.5's releases and don't remember frequent comments like that. If anything, videogames changed to mimic 3rd edition more than the reverse with the popularity of d20 and OGL licenses. Once in a while a 2nd edition or earlier grognard might have commented on that but there was never anything close to a general consensus of it feeling like a video game let alone an admission that they were a major influence.

I only started playing a month ago, so all I know is 4th edition. I'm interested to see how my friends who have been playing for years react to this news.

The Dark Saga wrote:I only started playing a month ago, so all I know is 4th edition. I'm interested to see how my friends who have been playing for years react to this news.

Let us know what they think about next year's probably change over (especially if they actually buy books instead of the common nowadays pirating of pdfs).

Kalamadea wrote:
And that thing about "dedicated rolls" is just flat out wrong. You had healers and a tanks and strikers in 3.5 just as much as you do in 4e, the only difference is that in 3.5 you picked a basic class and built them to fit that role via feats and equipments and spell choice. 4e you do it by picking a particular class with that role predetermined. You pick the class that matches what you want to do instead of molding a more generic character into that role. That makes it easier to play, but I'll admit a large part of the fun for most people is customizing your character to match what they should do in your mind's eye, and customizability is something 4e severely lacks compared to "proper" RPGs.

And therein is part of the problem. Before calling them 'tanks' or 'strikers' was considered, at least in my area, derogatory, and grounds to be pelted with dice. It was 'roll' playing instead of 'role' playing.

If you wanted to be a fighter-cleric-mage-thief in 3.5 you could do that (IIRC they were called 'Adventurers' and were a prestige class in either Dragon or some other supplement). 4e was about limitations and forcing people into a role. Previous editions were far more flexible then that.

As far as fun goes: most of the groups I've talked to in the PA-NY-VA-WV area have said the same thing: 4e was not fun. Dealers told me: 4e does not sell. Convention goers told me: Hey, check out Pathfinder (which I had started subscribing to as soon as Dragon closed due to my outstanding subscription).

So, yeah.

BaronIveagh wrote:If you wanted to be a fighter-cleric-mage-thief in 3.5 you could do that (IIRC they were called 'Adventurers' and were a prestige class in either Dragon or some other supplement).

The easiest way to play that sort of character is the Factotum base class from Dungeonscape (cowritten by the guy who writes the Order of the Stick webcomic) but like you say, there's nothing stopping you mixing and matching base classes and prestige classes to get what you want.

As far as fun goes: most of the groups I've talked to in the PA-NY-VA-WV area have said the same thing: 4e was not fun. Dealers told me: 4e does not sell. Convention goers told me: Hey, check out Pathfinder (which I had started subscribing to as soon as Dragon closed due to my outstanding subscription).

I started working at a hobby shop just a few months after 3.5 hit the shelves, and finally left just before the 4e essentials hit. In those 6 years selling RPGs, miniatures and board games I played in quite a few groups of all those systems (and others) both privately and at the shop. I ran more than a few D&D games days for 3.5 and later 4e, and a few short campaigns. 3.5 was extremely popular until 4e hit, go back and read my old posts where I talked about how much more 3.5 we sold than 4e, and how much more Pathfinder sold when it finally released. You say you talked to dealers? To different groups? I saw those numbers first-hand, I did the ordering for it, i talked to those players as they bought it and pre-ordered supplements. I know exactly what RPGs sold best and worst and which supplements sold more: I had to restock the shelves. I was on the phone with distributors and looking through release catalogues trying to get an idea of how many to order. 3.5 in it's heyday was hands down more popular than 4e is, and later PF 1is also hands-down more popular. Old news.

But you keep arguing that 4e wasn't fun because it was less popular, and that is just flat out asinine and WRONG. The fact is that it continued to sell, just not as well as 3.5 had. What you actually mean when you say "it's not fun" is that YOU don't like it, and the people YOU hang out with don't like it. You ignore the fact that you don't and can't talk to every gamer out there. I saw a lot of hatred for 4e and the worst vitriol came from people that never even tried it. That's perfectly fine, you don't have to like it at all. But we also had a LOT of customers that love 4e. You can't say that something is not fun at all just because it is less popular. Popular is NOT the same as universal, and 4e is NOT universally despised. Different strokes for different folks. All those people you talked to that didn't like 4e? They weren't the target audience. New players were the target audience, and IT WORKED. New people got into that had no interest before, and they had FUN. When 4e first released quite a few of our Magic: the Gathering players decide MTG was too expensive to keep up with, and since 4e was brand new (and from same company, gotta love brand loyalty) they gave it a shot. Some of them played in groups at the shop, some at home. They thought it was fantastic and I know at least 2 of those groups are still playing it.

PS- I find you calling them roll-players incredibly hilarious, you had me in tears the first time you wrote that. The very first time I ever heard someone call them roll-players instead of role-players, it was a guy that had just put a 3.5 PHB back on the shelf in disgust, complaining that rolling dice for social skill checks like diplomacy and sense motive had no place in a roleplaying game. I'm still not sure if I find your misplaced elitism funnier, or his. He made me aware of the term, but you have such delicious irony that it's almost palpable.

Kalamadea wrote:
But you keep arguing that 4e wasn't fun because it was less popular,

... the rest of it I'll let stand more or less, as you do have a point to a degree. However, this part you have (continuously) gotten backwards. It didn't sell because quite a few people found it not fun.

Let me try this comparison: 4e is like being visited by a dominatrix. Some people enjoy it, but most people would probably not find it as stimulating without a big bag of cocaine first.

BTW: that guy that put it back must have missed 2e as well. Since, IIRC those originally came about in one of the 2e source books.

warboss wrote:I did read them as well as your initial one line trolling response that you chose to follow up with *surprise!* another one line trolling response.

What is sad is I know that you know that trolling and disagreeing aren't the same thing, yet here you are getting all weak at the knees and losing your composure and doing just that. You don't like what I am saying so it must be trolling? Grow up.

warboss wrote:Only now after being called out

What are you, twelve years old all of a sudden?

warboss wrote:are you finally bothering to explain your opinion as well as address the issues brought up in that post (something you should have done in the first place if you're bothering to respond). The proper response to an opinion you disagree with is not calling the person delusional but to state your own with something to back it up.

No, my friend, you seem to be cherry picking to suit your desired feeling. I have had this discussion multiple times over multiple threads including this one and you keep harking back to one comment, that was deserved, and ignoring all context around it. You can pretend it is the only post made and ignore if you choose to. It doesn't make you look very good, but you can do that if you want.

warboss wrote:where is the evidence that there was a general feeling of 3.5 being like a video game or are you simply just delusional?

Well it was expressed here for one, before and after your post. The fact you either didn't read enough of the thread to see it or just choose to ignore it speaks volumes.

warboss wrote:I've been active on the internet since Netscape had its beta and actively followed D&D forums during 3/3.5's releases and don't remember frequent comments like that.

Saying you have been on the internet for a long time so you must know everything on a subject is a new argument. Not a very good one, but new. I'm not new to these interwebs either and I remember the schism caused by the release of 3rd edition. It wasn't as polarizing as when 4e but it still happened. If you either glossed over the arguments or ignored them doesn't mean they didn't happen, and considering you seem to have done that in this very thread it wouldn't suprise me at all that you had done the same in the past. The internet wasn't as populated at that time either so it wasn't a very good measure of much of anything. The arguments were there though.

warboss wrote:If anything, videogames changed to mimic 3rd edition more than the reverse with the popularity of d20 and OGL licenses.

Balderdash. Third Edition wasn't so popular that somehow developers were dashing to mimic it. Even the most popular RPGs (Baldur's Gate), limited to PC only of course, were based on 2nd edition. It wasn't till later you got NWN and 3rd edition translation. It was also still a very niche hobby at the time as well. It wasn't as if RPGers were considered nerds in 2nd but then all of a sudden 3rd came around and everyone wanted to be next to the cool kids who played 3rd is a bit odd. While we are now at a point where the stigma of being a gamer doesn't hold the negative context it used, it isn't becuase 3.0 was so cool people wanted to get with it.

warboss wrote:Once in a while a 2nd edition or earlier grognard might have commented on that but there was never anything close to a general consensus of it feeling like a video game let alone an admission that they were a major influence.

I have seen practically the same arguments made against 3e by other players as I have against 4e by 3e players. It has been over a decade since the change from 2e to 3e and people have made peace with it genreally and so it isn't the hot button topic it used to be. Again, while not as dramatic a shift as to 4e, there was derision and edition wars just the same. There are probably several reasons for this: rise of internet, change in fan base attitude, first time competing against itself, ect. This most recent one is a doozy, though it is a bit lopsided as 4e players seem more content to play their game while 3e/PF want to spend more time complaining. They are the guy that say they have a new girlfriend (PF) but then spend all their time talking about their ex (D&D). Spend less time talking about your ex, everyone knows you don't like her, but she isn't a horrible person just becuase you don't like her anymore, and spend more time with your current lady.

There are also people that started with 3rd edition that absolutely ador 4e so it isn't as if playing 3.0/3.5 absolutely precludes one from liking it. It only seems like all 3.0/3.5 players hate 4e becuase they are the most annoying and the most vocal, just refusing to let it go and move on with their lives and let people enjoy a different game.

Since, IIRC those originally came about in one of the 2e source books.

Some things were added with splat books, but skills as we know them came about in 3rd.

To add to Kalamadea's comments I'd bet dollars to donuts that 4e brought more people into the hobby than PF. PF kept the hobby base but 4e grew it, especially with female players. Going to a lot of conventions I met so many people that got into the hobby through 4e, and many of them from backgrounds that were not normal to hobby gaming. It was a great gateway drug into the hobby.

Ahtman wrote:
Some things were added with splat books, but skills as we know them came about in 3rd.

To add to Kalamadea's comments I'd bet dollars to donuts that 4e brought more people into the hobby than PF. PF kept the hobby base but 4e grew it, especially with female players. Going to a lot of conventions I met so many people that got into the hobby through 4e, and many of them from backgrounds that were not normal to hobby gaming. It was a great gateway drug into the hobby.

NWPs date all the way back to the original OA for 1st ed. All 3e did was split them in into feats and skills and give Skills a new resolution mechanic.

Hmm... let's see... currently on Amazon' top 10 Fantasy Gaming Best Sellers: Pathfinder (Corebook is 1 Bestiary 3 and Bestiary 1 at 2 and 4 respectively with Beginner box, advanced players guide and GM's screen taking up additional slots), D&D 4e (Redbox and PHB at 5 and 9, respectively) it gets worse if you go out to their top 20, with 10 positions occupied by Pathfinder and only 5 by D&D 4e. (Sadly, FFG only holds one)

Hmm... Corebook at #1, PHB is at #9...

ICv2 reported the following at free rpg day 2011:

"This year Pathfinder surpassed D&D. We ran out of the Pathfinder module three quarters of the way through the day but still had a few of the D&D sourcebook at the end. While still strong, D&D is not selling nearly as well as Pathfinder and this reflected in our customers' choices in the free offering. Of those customers not taking both, D&D was the book they chose to forgo. Unlike what happened with the two previous edition changes of D&D, this time, customers are voting with their dollars (and Free RPG Day choices) for Pathfinder."

So, can't even GIVE IT AWAY.