Quote from: Caesar Slaad;685631Paizo offered fans with remaining subscriptions the option of taking remaining issues in their new Pathfinder AP periodical. This was event #1.

I seem to recall an interview with Lisa Stevens where she said that the key moment in the launching of Paizo was when WotC let them take the Dungeon and Dragon subscription lists with them.

She basically said that those lists were worth their weight in pure gold. Probably more, since being electronic the lists probably didn't weigh very much.

The first game you play with your friends can have a huge influence on what you keep playing later on. It used to be D&D or WoD. Nowadays a lot of people's first RPG is Pathfinder. What makes people think they'll switch to 5E if their friends have already moved to PF?

Quote from: Dimitrios;685650I seem to recall an interview with Lisa Stevens where she said that the key moment in the launching of Paizo was when WotC let them take the Dungeon and Dragon subscription lists with them.

She basically said that those lists were worth their weight in pure gold. Probably more, since being electronic the lists probably didn't weigh very much.

Reminds me of Xerox giving Apple the mouse for free.

Quote from: JongWK;686012The first game you play with your friends can have a huge influence on what you keep playing later on. It used to be D&D or WoD. Nowadays a lot of people's first RPG is Pathfinder. What makes people think they'll switch to 5E if their friends have already moved to PF?

DMs often get tired of crunchy games as they reach a stage in their life when they have less time and energy to run them. Can't play Pathfinder without a DM.

However, just as 3x/Pathfinder is known as the edition everybody wants to play and nobody wants to DM, I could see Next criticized as the edition nobody wants to play and everybody wants to DM. In my world, the DM makes the call on these thing, or someone else can step up and DM. But apparently, in this day and age a lot of DMs run systems they don't like in order to keep their players happy. Which is pathetic.

Quote from: Haffrung;686016DMs often get tired of crunchy games as they reach a stage in their life when they have less time and energy to run them. Can't play Pathfinder without a DM.

However, just as 3x/Pathfinder is known as the edition everybody wants to play and nobody wants to DM, I could see Next criticized as the edition nobody wants to play and everybody wants to DM. In my world, the DM makes the call on these thing, or someone else can step up and DM. But apparently, in this day and age a lot of DMs run systems they don't like in order to keep their players happy. Which is pathetic.

You have a point, but what I meant was that if a game "clicks" with a new player, to the point that he decides to stick with the hobby, then it is going to be his default go-to game in the years to come.

(In my personal experience, those were D&D and Shadowrun)

Quote from: Haffrung;686016DMs often get tired of crunchy games as they reach a stage in their life when they have less time and energy to run them. Can't play Pathfinder without a DM.

However, just as 3x/Pathfinder is known as the edition everybody wants to play and nobody wants to DM, I could see Next criticized as the edition nobody wants to play and everybody wants to DM. In my world, the DM makes the call on these thing, or someone else can step up and DM. But apparently, in this day and age a lot of DMs run systems they don't like in order to keep their players happy. Which is pathetic.

Yes, but players continually playing a game they don't like in order to constantly placate the DM is even more pathetic.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;686027Yes, but players continually playing a game they don't like in order to constantly placate the DM is even more pathetic.

I think players should be more open to playing a variety of systems than the gm, simply because the gm generally has a lot more work to do.

For example, I will gladly play any version of dnd.

But I would not want to gm 3X.

But as a player, I am hard pressed to justify why I would refuse to play any version.

Quote from: Haffrung;686016DMs often get tired of crunchy games as they reach a stage in their life when they have less time and energy to run them. Can't play Pathfinder without a DM.

However, just as 3x/Pathfinder is known as the edition everybody wants to play and nobody wants to DM, I could see Next criticized as the edition nobody wants to play and everybody wants to DM. In my world, the DM makes the call on these thing, or someone else can step up and DM. But apparently, in this day and age a lot of DMs run systems they don't like in order to keep their players happy. Which is pathetic.

I am one of those chumps that runs games for players even if its a system I don't really want to gm.

Yes, it is pathetic.

However, one group has finally come around to the startling new never before conceived idea of letting the gm pick the system.

Quote from: Bill;686028I think players should be more open to playing a variety of systems than the gm, simply because the gm generally has a lot more work to do.

For example, I will gladly play any version of dnd.

But I would not want to gm 3X.

But as a player, I am hard pressed to justify why I would refuse to play any version.

Players should not "be more open to playing a variety of systems than the gm". They should only play the games they want to play. Period.

I'll play games I don't like once or twice. After that, forget it. Life is too short for me to be a gaming martyr and torture myself needlessly. Gaming is not a moral obligation for me, but something I do for fun.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;686030Players should not "be more open to playing a variety of systems than the gm". They should only play the games they want to play. Period.

I'll play games I don't like once or twice. After that, forget it. Life is too short for me to be a gaming martyr and torture myself needlessly. Gaming is not a moral obligation for me, but something I do for fun.

My point is that when you have a gamer group of friends that enjoy playing rpgs together, and some players decide they only want to play different specific rpgs, they are not really being reasonable.

Its not like we are going to kick people out of the group, or not play.

A game system must be chosen.

Quote from: Bill;686035My point is that when you have a gamer group of friends that enjoy playing rpgs together, and some players decide they only want to play different specific rpgs, they are not really being reasonable.

Yeah. My group is just happy someone is willing to step up and DM, period. They've pretty much said what we play is up to me, because I'm the one doing the work.

Of course, I want everyone to have a good time, so I'm not going to run something people will hate. I told one guy whose favourite game is 1E AD&D that I just didn't want to run it anymore. He was okay with that. But the guy is a huge Tolkien fan, so I suggested the One Ring. We played for a few months, and everyone else seemed to like it, but I found it quite frustrating to GM. Then I suggested we try the D&D Next playtest, one of the other players downloaded the rules and said he thought they looked good, so that's what we've been playing for the last few months. Works for everybody.

But if one of my players said he wanted to play Pathfinder or 4E, I'd say sure, if you run it. And if he ran it, we'd play. If he didn't, we wouldn't.

Quote from: Haffrung;686040Yeah. My group is just happy someone is willing to step up and DM, period. They've pretty much said what we play is up to me, because I'm the one doing the work.

Of course, I want everyone to have a good time, so I'm not going to run something people will hate. I told one guy whose favourite game is 1E AD&D that I just didn't want to run it anymore. He was okay with that. But the guy is a huge Tolkien fan, so I suggested the One Ring. We played for a few months, and everyone else seemed to like it, but I found it quite frustrating to GM. Then I suggested we try the D&D Next playtest, one of the other players downloaded the rules and said he thought they looked good, so that's what we've been playing for the last few months. Works for everybody.

But if one of my players said he wanted to play Pathfinder or 4E, I'd say sure, if you run it. And if he ran it, we'd play. If he didn't, we wouldn't.

The issue I run into with one of my game groups is that two or three people will invariably dig in their heels and 'not want to do' whatever someone else proposes

Its a great group, we have a blast playing, but when we switch games its 'crisis mode'

We play so many games that this is a null point.

We just hung up AD&D 1e, now we're in nWoD Mage.  From what I have read, most groups wouldn't make that leap as readily as we have, forwards or backwards.

Yet, at the end of the year we're playing Rise of the Runelords, and the club owns every hardcover that Paizo has ever published, including the Psionics kickstarter book (when it gets here).

I don't understand the mentality.  Every game is a new opportunity, a way to check out new material and explore new worlds with impudence.  Why not just throw it all in there?  Play every game with gusto?  If you don't like it, you can always scrap it after a few weeks, or pull the rules or whatever.

It's your game.

Quote from: Bill;686035My point is that when you have a gamer group of friends that enjoy playing rpgs together, and some players decide they only want to play different specific rpgs, they are not really being reasonable.

Its not like we are going to kick people out of the group, or not play.

A game system must be chosen.

Sure, but who decides which people are being "unreasonable"? Being a good GM means choosing a game that the group doesn't hate. The GM needs to be reasonable too.

Do you ascribe to the belief that a game group should only have "one" game?

That's what it seems like, or there wouldn't be an argument.

If you look at Pathfinder and 3e as different games, both of which simply exist as larger buoys in a sea of gaming options...well the argument loses it's relevance.