Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cassu

So, tell me about Pathfinder

Recommended Posts

 

I played WoW for like 6 years and have been playing 4th for a year and a half... I must be missing something? I don't understand the comparison.

I dont either.

 

 

The comparison comes from a Wizard's designer who stated they added defined roles in 4th, which are more important then the class itself, that were inspired by MMOs and how parties and raids work. Naturally to most people MMO=WoW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few other bits and pieces in 4e that are common to MMOs - specifically, there are a few things that were always sort of in RPGs but that MMOs (particularly WoW, as the trend-setter) codified much more strictly and explicitly which 4e then took inspiration from.

For example, 4e talked a lot about roles in the codified MMO sense of "we need a tank and a DPS". RPGs have always had classes that were good at what we would now call tanking, but there is a difference in explicitly calling out and making a point of saying "you, because you picked this class, are the tank". I think a lot of players didnt like the feeling that sort of thing creates. Or the concept of "cooldowns" is another part where a similar thing happened - there have always been some sort of limits on powers and spells, but during 4e creation the designers spent time talking about cooldowns in an explicit and codified kind of way which translated into dailies and encounter powers and again created a different feel to previous editions, particularly for people who were aware of how the designers had talked about them.

I think that kind of codification and homogenisation is a lot of what some people mean when they talk about 4e being MMO-like. Its a design style where everything is carefully balanced and designated to within an inch of its life, and thats not what everybody wants.

edit: GAH! Ninjas! :ph34r:

Edited by Caffiene
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll never understand the PF lovers need to put down 4E. It's like the defining characteristic of the PF fan. :p

 

 

I've ran a PF game for about 2 years now and I've come to the conclusion it just isn't for me. I like the house rules I came up with for 3E much better and find the fiddly rules tweaks PF did to 3E a constant irritant. Someone up thread said that all of the differences between PF and 3E can be learned in an hour. I find that to be a gross understatement. We've played hundreds of hours of PF now and still find stuff that differs between the 2 editions. This is not to say PF is the worse game ever (I know - on the internet is has to been the best or the worse - no middle ground!) but it just doesn't do 'it' for me. I'd rather just play 3E or, if I'm DMing, 4E or BD&D both of which are a snap to prep and run - important features when your in your 40s and have more demands on your time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll never understand the PF lovers need to put down 4E. It's like the defining characteristic of the PF fan. :p

 

Up till now, this has been a relatively personalities free thread. Can we please keep this sort of comment for other boards?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'll never understand the PF lovers need to put down 4E. It's like the defining characteristic of the PF fan. :p

 

Up till now, this has been a relatively personalities free thread. Can we please keep this sort of comment for other boards?

Heh. Wasn't it about this time last year that you scolded me for "stifling discussion" by asking people not to engage in edition warring?

 

Hellcow; A lot of this probably comes from many PF players starting Pathfinder because they liked 3.X and didn't want to change up to 4E. The very root of their game comes from "not being 4E".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My group shifted to Pathfinder,mostly because we already had all kinds of 3.5 stuff, and when Paizo gave out their beta for free the good stuff was easily made compatible, and the game seemed a distinct improvement. We didn't want to switch to 4E because it would mean shelving a bunch of stuff to start again. Since then, a few of the group have been actively assessing it as far as what is available, and how the rules work, and frankly none of us are impressed. It's not bad, it's just not good for what we want. To that end, I think it is a touch unfair to say the core of Pathfinder is that "it's not 4E" Though I have seen the edition wars have many a battle fought, and much blood and venom spilled, using that as an argument. Those who make that argument, however, tend to come across as the kind of shock troops that neither side minds seeing get stomped into the mud, much the way that those who fling arguments back at the Pathfinder/3.x crowd come across. Not here though. Oh no, here when we fight the Edition Wars, we fight as genteel warriors, with skill and discipline, and reasonable arguments as our weapons

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, fair cop; it may well be an unfair statement.

 

Keep in mind, though, that it's coming from someone who liked 3.X, finds 4E tolerable, and has enjoyed all he's read (and the very little he's played) of Pathfinder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I played WoW for like 6 years and have been playing 4th for a year and a half... I must be missing something? I don't understand the comparison.

I think that the core is that the for many 4e rules lack verisimilitude.

 

It is more of a game, less of a simulation.

 

And, like WoW there is a lot of focus on how the classes balance against each other - with a common complaint being the classes can feel kind of 'samey'.

 

To be honest... I have never felt that 4e was in any way like WoW - I am inclined to compare it to board games more than MORPGS. Which is a big chunk of why I think that 4e should not have been a substitute for 3.5, but an alternative to 3.5. The games differ enough that they didn't need to compete.

 

I... did not enjoy the little bit of 4e that I played - it seemed like a lot of time was spent affecting opponents in ways that took up more time, and provided less fun.

 

I found the game overly structured - and not enough of a tool kit for making your own worlds.

 

But that is only based on what I find fun.

 

In the end though... play what you like - if you like 4e then play it - keep it alive.

 

Me... I really like Pathfinder, and the way they have begun deconstructing the classes. The Pathfinder Adventure Paths are really well done.

 

It has a decent toolkit, and can be used with the enormous library of tools that folks created for the 3.X architecture. If I want to use one of the steampunk supplements from 3.X then I can, with only a bit of tweaking.

 

The Auld Grump

 

 

That is a relly good summary. If I try to add my own spin, I would put it this way:

 

 

4th edition is ver much mechanics-first, defining the experience and then building the rules around the desired result.

 

3.x and Pathfinder are structured to simulate a praticular world, using a set of basic axioms to define how things interract, and extrapolating from there.

 

The result is that 4th edition delivers a pretty consistent and well structured game experience that some people love. (The mechanics are pretty smooth, and it is possible for a player to have all of their particular powers laid out in front of them in a reasonable amount of space.)

 

The 3.x line provides a (IMO) more immersive experience where effects interract in an intuitive manner (I am strong, therefore it hurts when I hit you) This leads to a very rich and complex set of interractions between effects, which are not self-contained and or necessarily limited to pre-determined effects. Things tend to be much more free-form.

 

Both are good. 4th is too mechanics-first to me, and I find that I want much more of a simulation in a game. On the other hand, I recognize that it plays well, and can provide a smoother experience with less time and work on the part of the participants, especially the GM. (And I have had fun playing it, it's just not my preferred choice)

 

Edit:

How many people here are used to using the terms "Gamist", "Simulationist", and "Realist"? I find that they are very helpful in discussing the philisophy and feel of games.

Edited by klarg1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely "Simulationist" and "Realist" are the same thing?

 

I've always heard "Narrativist" used for the third option.

 

And personally, I think it's bollocks; I don't fancy an "either or" aspect to my roleplaying, I like having all three in roughly equal amounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely "Simulationist" and "Realist" are the same thing?

 

I've always heard "Narrativist" used for the third option.

 

And personally, I think it's bollocks; I don't fancy an "either or" aspect to my roleplaying, I like having all three in roughly equal amounts.

No, not necessarily 'bollocks' - you are thinking that it must be either/or - I think that it is much more of a Venn diagram, with varying amounts of overlap - from all of one, and none of the others, to each in equal proportion.

 

I have a great deal of Simulationist and Narrativist, and not much at all of Gamist.

 

Most of the 4e enthusiasts that I have met have been Gamists - but by no means all.

 

3.X seems more evenly distributed; but I suspect that the loudest complainers about 3.X - the ones that led to many of the decisions that helped shape 4e - were the Gamists.

 

As much as many 3.X fans would like to believe it, 4e was not created in a vacuum. 4e did address problems that some folks had with 3.X.

 

But WotC made the mistake of listening to the loudest complaints, not the majority. Then they assumed that vocal minority was the entirety of their fan base. In large part because it allowed them to do what they wanted to do anyway - reboot the franchise under their sole control.

 

Add a marketing disaster. Stir vigorously. Serve boiling hot.

 

I gather a similar thing almost killed the Tomb Raider franchise - WotC is not alone....

 

The Auld Grump

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, when 4e was on the horizon there were promise of online game tables that were eventually dropped and online tools were you had to pay each month (like WoW subsciptions that people keep bringing up) that annoyed many players. The original "core" books felt incomplete as they were missing iconic classes or monsters. And things like the GSL instead of the OGL just drove tons of good publishers away.

 

These elements did not help 4e's adoption and it had *nothing* to do with the core mechanics of the game itself.

Edited by Cranky Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Fliptrip
      Hi i pre-ordered a Valeros Iconic fighter v1 at our local game store, i would like to ask if there is assemble required with mini beside the base assembly? Do still need to pin some parts of the mini? Tnx

    • By aku-chan
      Presenting Amiri, she's an Iconic Barbarian from Reapers Pathfinder line.
       
      Had this one a little while, but all the fiddly bits kept putting me off (and I normally like fiddly minis), she turned out to be super fun to paint though.
       
      As always any comments or criticisms are warmly received.
    • By ksbsnowowl
      I painted Goremaw the Great Worm up as a fire-infused purple worm for a unique creature from the Pathfinder setting of Galorion.  I am running the Curse of the Crimson Throne AP in D&D 3.5, and this creature will show up in my game tonight.  It is my first finished creature miniature (I have done some terrain previously), and being a perfectionist, I put in 48 hours of work on him (lots of nooks and crannies, and I don't have an airbrush).
       
      I finished him last night, reaching the "good enough" state, as time didn't allow me to put off varnishing him any further.
       
      I started posting a WIP thread when I started working on him several months ago.  Check it out HERE.
       
      Here are my Cindermaw glamor shots.
       








    • By Nightwing
      Here is the start of pathfinder red, which I’ll be doing as a Sapphire dragon, similar to what i did with the Grenadier Red Dragon II (which I did as  a Ruby dragon) a while ago.
       
      Just base colors here; dark blue/black wash over his entire body, earth wash over the sand, and white statue. I really like how the blue and brown look together. The brown will be lightened up to sand, and the blue will end up a more saturated dark blue. I hope those colors will still look good together...
       
       


    • By Maglok
      Some people might call it Minivember, though technically I had 23 days of vacation and just wanted to paint a mini every day. Some were finishing older minis, some entirely new, some were the size of a nailclipping. I present, my Minivember.
       

       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       

  • Who's Online   27 Members, 1 Anonymous, 34 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...