Steve Geddes's page

Sorry for the delay, my internet has been down. Thanks for the reply. Im glad to hear that. Now I just need to pick one to run. Anyone out there that has run these in 3.5 that can report which ones work better in 3.5?

The first four APs were written for 3.5, so there'd be literally no problem with any of them:

Rise of the rune lords
Curse of the crimson throne (my favorite, in passing)
Second darkness
Legacy of fire

There are also the dungeon APs if you have access to those:

Shackled city
Age of worms
Savage tide

Those last three aren't set in golarion, if that matters, plus they go all the way to twentieth level (the first four topping out somewhere in the teens).

It's all opinion, in my view - there's no metric for 'closeness of editions'. Arguing which was the bigger change is like arguing whether living in New York is more like living in Paris or in London - everyone will have reasons for their views, but they arent actually arguments (in the sense of being persuasive to others), just reasons.

FWIW, I think 4E was radically different from what went before and that 3rd edition was as well.

What you are looking for is the Rival Guide.

That's good for villains who are also adventurers. I'd personally quite like to see a broader pool of villains.

I'd also like this - particularly if it included a few minions/sidekicks/allies for each villain in addition to a statblock and backstory.

B) It's at least distantly possible that the player doesn't realize that this sort of thing is a problem. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I prefer to assume the best of others, especially when it comes to a game, as opposed to truly serious matters. Maybe talking can prevent the issue from cropping up in other games.

C) And just in general, I think that airing an issue and having a frank discussion about it is always a better first step in dealing with it than responding with passive-aggression or just plain aggression. Maybe he will have to be removed from the game. I might even venture to say that he probably will, though I hesitate to do so given only second-hand information. But talking can't hurt, and it could certainly help, if only in minor ways.

I agree with these points very strongly - in my gaming group the described behaviour just wouldnt be a problem. If a player wants to read ahead and spoil the mystery for themselves I'm not going to be very concerned - even if they're metagaming like crazy and solving all the problems of the AP as soon as they come up. The players I DM for aren't generally going to care either, so who am I to tell him how he should be having fun?

.
I'm obviously not trying to tell you it isnt a problem - you set the rules of your own game, after all. Nonetheless, it is entirely possible that he would be genuinely surprised to find that it was out of line. Proceeding to levy a punishment or to try and "catch him in the act" seems to me to be steps to take after confirming that he understands that it's not on.

I believe one of my players is reading ahead in the adventure path that i'm running. During the last game this player seemed to know just when the double crossing npc was going to attack and how many other creatures where there to deal with.

how should i handle this? The last time i noticed this behavior and made changes to the adventure he seem upset that things didn't go the way they should have.

I havent read the thread, I'm afraid so presumably this has already been said. Nonetheless - before getting too grumpy or assigning consequences, make sure you've spelled out that you dont think it's ok to read an AP before playing it (presuming that's your view). I for one dont actually mind if someone has read the module I'm running. Perhaps this player is unaware it's something you'd rather not happen.

For me, an AP is definitely "an adventure instalment plus some additional thematically linked bits and pieces". Whether its good or bad is determined pretty much solely by the adventure quality, in my eyes.

In terms of what I like in those extra bits - I like more flavor material and less mechanics. Gazetteers suit me better than statblocks and I prefer an "ecology of the..." article to a bunch of monsters.

Ultimately though, I think the AP would be good value if it only included the adventure - everything else is an added bonus.

This was an inspiring blog. Thanks.

I doubt however that anything in 5E will be just a simple "rehash" of any thing from D&D's prior incarnations.

Me too - except for those things common to all editions, I guess..

I'm always a fan of less classes with more customisation, rather than multiplying the base classes, so it sounds promising to me.

Personally, I see no need for classes like samurai, cavalier, barbarian, etcetera. Although I'm clearly not going to get it from D&D:Next, I'd like a game where the only class choices were fighter, thief, cleric and magic-user - each customisable in as many directions as necessary to describe whatever character you wanted.

As to 4E Failure/Sales, I'm not going to comment directly on that. All I can say is that Monte Cook has basically said outright they want to mend the split that 4E caused in their fanbase. They want those fans back. Rehashing 4E yet again is not going to work in that regard. Rehashing 3.x is not going to work in that regard.

This has been the impression I've got too - they're principally looking to repair relationships with the fanbase.

.
I dont think 4E was a financial failure (the only comments I've seen about sales are that 4E sold well and essentials was a bigger seller than they expected, the red box in particular). I think it's the fragmentation of the fans and the negativity with which 4E and WoTC are viewed which is the true failure they're trying to rectify.

Im abit clueless about rules, but being a net +2 racial bonus, doesn't this stack with all the other, superior options? That would mean its good (with the inevitable diminishing returns) if you're trying to maximize perception. It wouldn't be the first choice, but it may eventually be the only choice to eke out another +2.

I removed a popcorn post.

What's a popcorn post?

Pathfinder Chronicles: Guide to Absolom.

DDI-exclusive content is what I'm referring to. It's only available to you while you have a subscription.

Yes, you can download it.

What happens if your copy becomes destroyed for whatever reason? You have to have DDI subscription to download it again (legally). It's not purchased information.

I know how to back-up stuff, and I do, but honestly, I would rather have that information in print or purchasable as a download accessible from my account. Not just as an on/off switch.

Cheers. I'd also rather have it in print, FWIW, but such is life. No doubt digital product is going to become more prevalent rather than less. :(

.
I guess I dont really see the potential loss as an issue - if I buy a printed book and it's destroyed I dont get another copy from the publisher either. I suppose it's more likely that I'll lose a PDF, but it's also ridiculously cheap on a page-by-page count.

On a side note - was errata only part of the DDI? I hope that I'm reading that wrong because you most certainly shouldn't have to pay for errata.

I dont think so. I think the advantage of the DDI subscription is all your characters and so forth are updated when errata comes out via the tools automatically - I think you can get any errata the old fashioned way, if you prefer (not that I ever have, obviously).

Okay, I can see that response... "What is he smoking?" was my first impression (still is based on my experience), but I see why his claim might resonate differently with others. Truth be told-- I wasn't running the 4E game at any point (and I won't be trying to, because I really don't like the way 4E handles combat and character powers either-- that actually is part of my reason for feeling that 4E is farther from original D&D than any other version so far); the game (as run by the person who was GM) was run as pretty much a long series of combats, interspersed with "skill challenges" and other non-combat events that, under the 4E "skill challenge" rules, were handled... much too close to the way the combats were, IMO-- see if you can roll enough successes on various skills before you run up too many failures, or take too long doing it, or whatever else the limiter on that particular challenge was. Some story-development and player-decision making, but extremely short, IMO, on character-development and character interaction (especially PC-NPC interactions that were at least partly decided by role-play, instead of by dice on skills).

Now, as far as I could tell (having looked at the 4E rules) the GM was running the game "by the book"-- if he'd thrown out lots of those rules and game-book guidance, I would have enjoyed the game a lot more... but it also wouldn't have mattered all that much what "system" we were officially playing at that point, because the 4E 'rules' would have been chucked out the window. Some amount of rules to handle skills and non-combat task completion is good, IMO-- but it shouldn't ever get in the way of actually playing your character -- you shouldn't be stuck relying on the dice for everything. I like PF and 3.5's skill system-- I think it defines enough to be useful while leaving enough room for originality, creativity, and for not letting the dice play your character instead of you-- at the same time, there's a lot of things we don't handle by dice in the PF games I'm in now, that could be reduced to diplomacy checks and the like in the hands of other, more rigid and inflexible, GMs. I do like a much looser, more free-flowing, more left up to the GM and players, game; rather than the game I saw in my experiences with 4E.

I can easily see that happening - it doesn't help that WoTC put out a lot of social skill challenges early on. (I use skill challenges when I run PF too and they work great, but I've never seen a successful social one, in any system).

When you say "...but it also wouldn't have mattered all that much what "system" we were officially playing at that point..." it resonates with how I play RPGs. I haven't played as many as you, but I've tried maybe a dozen or so (?) and ultimately it always feels the same to me - no doubt because we take such a laid back approach about rules and happily ignore things which are too much work (none of our PF games bother to track encumbrance for example - we just "chuck out" the rules there, but I still consider it "playing pathfinder").

I agree with you that skill challenges are very similar to combats - a game with combat - combat - skill challenge - combat - skill challenge... would no doubt be as frustrating as one with just a series of combats. Im not much of a role player, but story is important to me - without some creative ways to interact with a dynamic plot an RPG isn't going to hold my interest.

I suppose I could try and explain in detail-- but everyone's experience (and the resulting impressions) are different and that's okay. I have no wish to reopen another flame-war, and since that's the way-distant past, I don't think our differing impressions of 4E's resemblance to 0E has that much bearing on what the new game may or may not look like (Steve-- you and I and a few of the others might be able to handle it respectfully, but I'm more than a little concerned with how many others might jump in on that, after the past couple of thread explosions around this section of the Paizo boards so far).

Your approach is probably wise (but I'm an eternal optimist :p).

.
I only mention it in response to the "what is he smoking?" comment. Most people I've chatted to who don't like 4E seem to have played it as a series of combats with very little roleplaying and/or story development. I could imagine someone from that perspective seeing 4E and AD&D as being poles apart. The way you do it at your table is going to guide your views on that though (i dont really know the rules of any RPG ive played, so i wouldnt know what ive chucked out and/or misunderstood or adapted).

In terms of rules for being a blacksmith, or taming a wild animal, or something like that - we do it the same in 4E as we did in AD&D. I was speculating that that's the kind of thing Mearls was referring to.

Terquem wrote:

Original would be, in my opinion, the three lttle books, of which I only have the Monster and Treasure assortment still in my collection. It predates both first edition AD&D and Basic D&D by three to four years depending on how you count it. The Acaeum is your friend

http://www.acaeum.com/

edit: I also still have my battered copy of the "Outdoor Survival Game"

In chronological order:

OD&D (1974 - four year run, realistically): The three original digest books with Greyhawk Suppliment, Blackmoor suppliment, Eldritch Wizardry suppliment, gods demigods and heroes suppliment and swords and spells.

Holmes Basic D&D (1977 - four year run): the original "basic" D&D, an attempt to clean up D&D.

AD&D (1977 - twelve year run): 1e Officially started in '77 with the release of the Monster Manual, wasn't a complete game until '79 with the release of the DMG.

Moldvay/Cook Basic and Expert D&D (started 1981 - two year run): a rewrite of OD&D (sort of) aimed at younger players, though it was quite popular with older gamers as well.

BECMI (started 1983 - eight year run): Frank Mentzer's rewrite of basic & expert with expansions all the way to "god" level.

AD&D Second Edition (1989 - eleven year run): Dave Cook's rewrite of AD&D. Included in this is "skills and powers", etc. as they were optional rules, even though they're commonly referred to as "2.5"

D&D Rules Cyclopedia (1991): The "fifth" edition of Original D&D in a way. Compiled and revised "basic" rules.

D&D Third Edition (2000 - three year run): Yeah.

3.5 (2003 - five year run): Yep

4e (2008 - run not done quite yet): And here we are.

5e: ?

Thanks for that. Looks like I started with Holmes Basic (which I'd always thought of as 'original D&D'), then pretty immediately AD&D.

.
In response to Finn K, I too find 4E very similar to these early editions (as opposed to PF/3.5 which feel like something else entirely). To me, the distinction in feel is the reliance on DM fiat and focus on story justification rather than extensive rules and subsystems. I think that combat in 4E is nothing like AD&D, if that's what you were focussing on, but the non-combat stuff is where I think the similarities lie.

cibet44 wrote:

To speculate one step further I don't think "5E" will be a new rule-set at all. I think it will be a simple version of 4E that can scale (optionally) in complexity up to the current level of 4E. That's it. Mearls has always inferred that 4E is closer to 0E than most people think. Now they are just going to publish a book or two to show how this is the case and call it "D&D Next".

Having played 0E (at the beginning of my gaming life, when it was the "only game in town"), my first reaction is that I want to try whatever Mearls was smoking when he made that inference. I just don't see it, at all (4E being close to 0E, that is).

Is 0E AD&D? Or Basic/Expert/Etcetera? (Or something else?)

To speculate one step further I don't think "5E" will be a new rule-set at all. I think it will be a simple version of 4E that can scale (optionally) in complexity up to the current level of 4E. That's it. Mearls has always inferred that 4E is closer to 0E than most people think. Now they are just going to publish a book or two to show how this is the case and call it "D&D Next".

It is unrealistic to think Hasbro would abandon (or diminish) 4E by publishing yet another new and incompatible rule-set. "D&D Next" absolutely has to be compatible with 4E and the only way to do this is to make it, at it's core, the same game. To me, after reading various developer comments, the goal of "D&D Next" is to make fans of old D&D (pre-3E) want to play 4E by tweaking it so it suits the their game play preferences, not their actual rules.

I don't think this is bad or wrong. It's just not for me.

This has become my opinion too (although, in my case, it would suit our group well).

I think one advantage would be that it would preserve the value of the DDI - irrespective of whether one were to switch rules systems or not. There would be D&D:Next, post-Essentials and pre-essentials 4E subscribers who would all be able to use the new material. Whether the players of earlier editions are interested in making the switch would be what determined the model's success or otherwise but at least the risk of damaging current players would be minimised (and you'd have to think they'd be leery of that, given how the previous attempt worked out).

donato wrote:

Any chance of the print version through Paizo?

I'll never say never, but for now DriveThruRPG is the only place the print version is available.

Gary McBride
Fire Mountain Games
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled, it is a fire to be kindled" -- Plutarch

No doubt there's all kinds of complications and issues. Nonetheless, I'd be certain to pick up a print copy if it were available here, but almost certainly won't elsewhere (I'm not strictly rational when it comes to RPG purchases).

Steve Geddes wrote:

This might be the case (there's my skepticism again) - I'll be interested to see whether Paizo find sales dropping off over time or whether they can continue their momentum for another five or ten years without needing a new edition to 'refresh' their product.
.
I sometimes wonder whether newcomers into such a richly devloped setting are more or less likely to get enthused than those of us who got into Pathfinder early. I think they have got better at it over time, but there is possibly a balancing factor - I can't decide whether the fact that some flavor material is now out of print would be a turn off for me or not (I'm something of a completionist) or how significant that cohort of people is.

Dunno. Truth is, I didn't start getting into Golarion at all (or Pathfinder for that matter), until WotC made the jump to 4E and I'd tried playing 4E long enough to realize how much I hated it. Even after that, the group I was playing D&D with (as opposed to other RPGs) was still playing 3.5 up until a couple of months ago, when we finally wrapped up the last 3.5 campaign and made the switch to Pathfinder.

So-- I'm actually fairly new to Pathfinder (and Golarion) but I'm really liking it so far; but I've been playing RPGs for a long long time. So long as Paizo keeps up the high quality, I'll probably stay enthused-- and I'm more likely to continue to give Paizo my support if they don't jack around with new editions of the rules every 3-5 years whether we need them or not.

They've certainly seemed to lack enthusiasm for a 'PF2' in the immediate future, so I'd be surprised if anything like that happened for another five+ years.

.
It may well be me. When I bought into Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Etcetera, I made sure everything was still in print so I didnt end up with a 'nearly complete' game. As it is, it still rankles that there are three Paizo flipmats I never managed to pick up.. :(

BTW-- I'm probably going to give 5E the benefit of the doubt to the extent that I will check it out and see how it plays... but after all the mistakes (IMO-- YMMV, no-one has to agree with me, so those out there reading, please don't re-open the flame-war over my personal distaste for WotC's decisions) WotC's made over the last several years, and the fact that they are owned/operated by the Borg (which means they can't meet the Borg's expectations and survive on Paizo's business model/customer base-- it's good enough for Paizo but NOT for a Hasbro subsidiary), I'm not holding high hopes that 5E is actually going to be worth much.

If I were WoTC, I'd be bracing for disappointment with those of the 3.5/PF crowd who are 'anti-4E'. I doubt they're going to have a significant pull in a choice-of-game sense, but am hopeful that it becomes more normal to like both games and both companies.

I'm sure that D&D is still making a profit for WotC-- which is one of the ways to define it as "selling well"-- at the same time, since D&D is the name with all of the name recognition, it can be "selling well" and be making a profit, and still not be meeting the Hasbro Board's and/or WotC's own top staff's expectations for how much it should be selling.

I certainly agree with this. Nonetheless, the fact the red box went out of print, the fact WoTC arent just dropping the entire brand and the fact they're relaunching both the RPG and the miniatures line all lead me to think things arent bad from a short-term monetary perspective, but rather this is a response to the long-term problem of being seen as the "BBEG" of gaming companies.

.
All opinion, of course. I like reading the various tidbits that are around and discussing 'best guesses' with other gamers - ultimately though, we're not much more than a bunch of nerdy guys at their computers saying 'here's what I think'.

Quality of production shouldn't be discounted. I would have considered supporting 4E's Forgotten Realms books despite not touching the system itself if they hadn't gone down the predictable and annoying route of "BIG CATACLYSM, SWEEPING CHANGES, OOOOoOOoooOO!" It's just another example of WotC losing touch with one section of their fanbase, I suppose. Sweeping what came before under the rug to make way for the new. It appeals to some people, but offends some as well.

I wouldn't say new settings are a prospect that would-be players have trouble getting enthused about, so much as it's daunting to jump in. For myself, I've only just started delving into Golarion. There's a lot of information there that I'm completely ignorant of, and rather than being a rational human being and saying "start here, work your way out," my brain insists on going, "get it all, read it all, cram it all in!" What little I've read has shown nothing but promise, however. I'll admit to not being this excited about the prospect of gaming in new territory since buying the Planescape boxed sets (which is a big deal -- I <3 Planescape).

That is a concern of mine regarding 5E, as well. If the system is perfect, what of the settings? Are we going to see Greyhawk 5.0? I certainly won't touch Faerun with a 100 ft' pole at this point. An entirely new setting being pushed?

I think there were many little things which added up to the pushback that 4E received - most of those who dont like the game cite various things, though not usually all of them.

.
From the comments I've seen, the FR changes are the ones which generated the most passionate objection (moreso than PDFs, OGL/GSL, firecubes, exclusion of druids, powers or anything else). I think Greyhawk would be best for them personally - and given their approach with Eberron and Dark Sun, I'd predict they'll be very careful about combining massive setting changes with new systems in the future.

It seems to me (taking Vancian as being a spellcaster with 'a set number of spell slots') that a non-vancian caster can always replicate that, but has added flexibility. Thus I'd think balancing it would be as simple as granting Vancian casters access to more powerful effects earlier or to restrict the 'power point pool' of the non-vancians so that an equivalently powerful non-vancian couldnt quite replicate the number of effects that a vancian caster could.

This still doesnt seem particularly difficult to me. Even two versions of the same class could choose between these options - you could declare a spell to cost the square of its level in power points or something and develop an appropriate rate of power point development - then let a wizard pick which form of spellcasting he followed. (Maybe memorisation is replaced with meditation in the morning and his expensive, necessary spellbook is replaced with a mediative crystal which has to get more and more valuable as he learns more powerful spells).

Well, It's exactly like the golden goose: you can have goose for supper once or eggs for the rest of the goose's lifespan. Producing new rules edition = goose banquet every 5 years or so; selling adventures = eggs for breakfast every morning.

This might be the case (there's my skepticism again) - I'll be interested to see whether Paizo find sales dropping off over time or whether they can continue their momentum for another five or ten years without needing a new edition to 'refresh' their product.

.
I sometimes wonder whether newcomers into such a richly devloped setting are more or less likely to get enthused than those of us who got into Pathfinder early. I think they have got better at it over time, but there is possibly a balancing factor - I can't decide whether the fact that some flavor material is now out of print would be a turn off for me or not (I'm something of a completionist) or how significant that cohort of people is.

Edit: that is, it's a question of whether they'll go for a sell rulebooks or sell adventures business model.

I'm very interested in where they go with this decision. I can easily see them 'sticking to their guns' and focussing on rules rather than flavor (my preference, as it happens given my like of WoTC rules and Paizo flavor material). However, it must be hard to look at Paizo's success (and I would argue Fantasy Flight Games as well) and not feel like high production value flavor material is something of a golden goose.

Steve, you kind of answer your own question about disclosure and stuff above. WotC's people can pretty much say what they want about how well things are selling, as their D&D sales don't affect what Hasbro stock sells for. The CCgs are the only thing ever mentioned in Hasbro's quarterlies, so D&D doesn't even register as a blip to their stock holders. The SEC isn't going to go "Enron" on Hasbro because a WotC guy said "sales are good!". That statement is completely subjective and not legally actionable in a court anyway.

No - but as a subsidiary, the board of Hasbro can take action - that's what I meant. The WoTC CEO didnt have to say D&D was selling well, he could have used any number of weasel words or argued a 'maturation of editions' as some kind of natural ebb and flow. After all, over the last few years, there's been a pretty obvious 'out' for anyone trying to lure discretionary spending out of consumers and failing to generate revnue growth.

I'm about 100% sure D&D is profitable. I just don't think it's as profitable as they projected. And, like Finn pointed out, if they say they're changing editions because sales didn't meet their projections, the change is going to be seen as desperation, not a stab at reconciliation. Really bad PR.

That's probably true. However, I dont think it follows that they wouldnt be releasing a new edition unless sales were disappointing.

(Btw, since I've been misunderstood before - I dont actually have a view on this, I'm just skeptical of claims made by people outside of the industry. I was never a fan of the ICV2 reports, for example - largely because I figured they underestimated PF sales enormously due to excluding sales through Paizo, but also because they ignored DDI revenue and sales through mainstream outlets.

My 'best guess' would be that PF is outselling D&D and that would be a disappointment to WoTC. I'm nonetheless aware that my grounds for thinking that are pretty slim).

However-- yes, those acknowledgements read like propaganda to me-- whole lot'a "mea culpas" as part of the PR operation to win people back again. "Mea culpas" on areas where "everybody already knows" they screwed up-- so it looks genuine, influences people, starts generating interest... without bringing up any mistakes or problem issues that people don't either already know about, or could really easily guess. The subtle propagandist doesn't try to cover up the flaws and mistakes you already know about-- he uses careful admission (with full spin control) in order to build up his credibility as an honest source. He also admits mistakes you don't know about yet, but are certain to find out about sooner or later, so that he can get the story out first (with his spin on it from the beginning) instead of having to play 'damage control' when you find out about it through an uncontrolled, other source later.

The press releases and columns I have read so far (I'm certain I haven't delved into all of them) do read like there's a good PR expert running over-watch, content, and spin control on every piece.

I see. I wonder if it's a familiarity with the people. I've been reading comments from Mearls for a while, so perhaps I'm more inclined to trust him as being genuine.

Steve Geddes wrote:

I have no knowledge of gaming companies or Hasbro in particular - so I also dont pretend to have anything more than opinion. Having said that, I would be astonished if Hasbro pay any attention to D&D.

Had to edit due to length, sorry.

I think D&D may be a very frustrating property to own for the bean counters. I can't speak about Australia, but here in the US D&D is simultaneously the genre name for every tabletop RPG to the uninitiated, and a (guessing now) low earning property where one person buys a copy of each book and shares with all their friends as needed.

The brand-name strength is the same here (most of my games of "D&D" have actually been rolemaster).

My point is more related to how corporations work and my perception of the relative economic value of D&D - parent companies rarely care about the functioning of their subsidiaries beyond the core products. As I understand things, Hasbro bought WoTC for pokemon (?) and Magic:The Gathering. I can't imagine they have any time to go sifting through WoTC's other products examining them for profitability or otherwise - their time is better spent on consolidation, acquisitions and developing synergies across their various subsidiaries.

Unless WoTC begins hemorrhaging money through D&D, I can't see how they'd care or notice. They own Parker Brothers too, tonka toys,...far too many companies to be across all the insignificant brands. I suspect they look at WoTC as 'the producers of M:TG' and that the value of that company is determined almost exclusively by the value of that brand.

Steve Geddes wrote:

What makes a magic system Vancian?

Preparing and "forgetting" spells that are slotted. It came from an author named Jack Vance IIRC who had a similar system in one of his novels.

So sorcerors in PF are non-vancian and wizards/clerics are vancian? I thought there was more to it than that.

.
Doesnt that make the OP's question rather trivial?

Steve--

I'm not so sure that CEOs of corporations that are wholly owned and operated by other corporations are comfortable with saying "we're not meeting expectations" when they want to keep their jobs... Plus, I know how to read propaganda-- one of the skills I learned in the military. :)

I dont know what your rules are in the US, but in Australia you're personally liable as a CEO if you say "Sales are doing great!" when they're not.

The acknowledgements of errors in the 4E launch and the legends and lore article dont read like propaganda to me - do they to you? I've heard WoTC employees directly comment on Pathfinder's success - they'd obviously be mad to attack such a successful brand (especially one which still carries the mantle of underdog) but they could easily not mention the competition. Things like that make me think this is a genuine mea culpa - without going so far as to say "4E was a failure" which I think is an oversimplification.

Seriously-- D&D 4E may be selling well (when you take in everything involved) AND still not be selling well enough to keep Hasbro happy. I wouldn't be surprised if we got the real numbers someday, and it shows that 4E is making a nice profit (by, say, the standards that a smaller game company would use); yet WotC is still being driven by Hasbro's demand that there is more profit to be made out there-- "look at all those customers who aren't buying your game! You need to get those people back, and get them buying our products again.... or we'll keep replacing you until we find somebody who will..." (or until they just shut down the unit because it's not profitable enough, compared with their other ventures.

I'm not sure if that's what's really going on behind the scenes, but it sure looks like that to me.

I have no knowledge of gaming companies or Hasbro in particular - so I also dont pretend to have anything more than opinion. Having said that, I would be astonished if Hasbro pay any attention to D&D. It's just not big enough to warrant their interest, as far as I can see, let alone for them to be issuing any directives. I'm sure they know about Magic - but, imo, parent companies have too much to do to be bothered micromanaging their subsidiaries.

What makes a magic system Vancian?

And, again, I'm not saying 4e is a bad system, and I'm not saying people don't like it. I'm saying WotC doesn't think it is a success. They didn't meet their sales goals. They have to answer to corporate overlords.

I've been hesitant to get involved (since I couldnt really care less about Vancian magic/nostalgia or anything else germane to the original thrust of this thread) however, from the tiny things I've been able to glean from WoTC comments, I dont think 4E's failure was sales figure related.

.
I'm basing that on comments by the WoTC CEO (who said D&D* was selling well as recently as the middle of last year) and from the fact that the red box beginner set went out of print for a while (at least at the distributor level) - which seems to indicate to me that it sold better than expected. Also from the comments they have been making regarding their professed goals with D&D:Next and the fact they will continue to provide some level of DDI support for 4E.

I think the central theme which shines through their comments is an acknowledgement of the divide in the fans between various editions (but principally the 3.5-4E divide) and a further acknowledgement that WoTC missteps contributed significantly to those ill-feelings. Every company want to make more money, of course - but it doesnt sound to me like this is a revenue based decision (at least in the short term) but a belated recognition that a strong, united D&D community is good for business and that their customers enjoy and expect active involvement in the development of the game. I see similar trends in their renewed devotion to organised play and getting people into local gaming stores.

I dont claim any special knowledge, but in general, executives do feel comfortable publically stating when revenues are lower than expected and that hasnt been the gist of the comments I've heard from WoTC. What I have heard is repeated comments along the lines that 4E focussed on one style of gameplay and that fans of other styles didnt feel their preferences were catered too.

* Albeit, he was probably including boardgames plus DDI subscription income and maybe even DDO revenue, I guess.

No edition did so as decisively as 4e did. 2e didn't sell half as well as 1e, 3e sold better than 2e (sales weren't 2e's problem, the edition itself spitting the base into Ravenloft players, Dark sun players, Forgotten Realms players, Planescape players, and the bean counters at TSR thinking gamers would buy everything like they did for 1e - and producing everything like all players would buy all the settings - was the problem).

4e was a huge miscalculation of what most gamers wanted. Hence Pathfinder's success. Again, I'm guessing they sold about equally, with 4e having the edge for the first year or so (after PF was released, not the first year of D&D 4e). But, and again, those numbers for Paizo are far above expectiations. For WotC they're well below.

And, sour grapes? I don't really care about 4e or WotC. They lost me when they pulled the older edition PDFs, not with 4e. I got more than I paid for the 4e core (PHB 1, DMG 1 and MM 1), so I didn't lose money on the deal. 4e is ok, I actually played a little at OwlCon and watched some games being played.

I've just been watching this stuff since '79, and this is the craziest thing I've seen in that time. WotC didn't screw up as badly as Lorraine Williams did at TSR, but they did screw up.

My intuition is similar to yours, although I don't really have a view about sales volume.

It seems to me that the 4E transition was something of a perfect storm - I don't think there was anything disastrous when viewed in isolation, but the revolutionary system changes, coupled with sweeping changes to FR, poorly received marketting campaign, retraction of PDFs and revocation of the dungeon/dragon licenses all alienated different subsets and, together, created a large backlash.

I wasn't playing D&D at the time - I'm interested to watch them this time around and see what their approach is.

Personally, I've really been enjoying Dragon and Dungeon lately. There have been some great articles on Dark Sun and just this month a bunch of articles on Cormyr and the Forgotten Realms. We're starting a new FR campaign soon, so I've been enjoying reading these for inspiration.

Yeah me too. I think they really lifted their game last year. Both the articles and adventures have improved, IMO (though i still dont think theyre in paizo's league).

Cheers. That all makes sense.

Oh yeah. That makes sense, I guess.

Is there any specific reason Malfeshnekor was chosen to be uncommon (instead of rare)? Such unique creatures seem more naturally to fit into the rare category to me, on the basis of usability of likely duplicates in a case. (In fact, I'd prefer these to be the apparent 'super rare' category).

Just announced! The cover image is a mockup; the actual product will feature an all-new cover image by Wayne Reynolds.

I'm curious whether you considered placing this within the Player Companion subscription instead of the rules line?

No doubt it's partly the price leading to my impression, but it seems to me it would fit more neatly there.

They do mention D&D dont they? They just have a disclaimer at the front stating that any reference is "not a challenge to the copyright" or similar.

I'm sure I've seen something along the lines of "An adventure for 4th edition D&D" or similar, even though it's not released under the GSL or the OGL.

Steve Geddes wrote:

I'd be interested to hear Paizo's take on experimenting with a 4/8 split for a year.

I can appreciate the fact that the "bookend" episodes of an AP require considerably more work and this solution seems to avoid that problem. Plus it stretches the usual parameters of APs rather than totally reinventing them, which seems to be Paizo's preferred method of experimentation.

One problem I could imagine would be that the two groups you list...

A 3/9 split, or anything further than that, is too much. A 3 part Adventure Path simply isn't long enough to justify it being an adventure path, in my opinion.

But a 4 part one? Dunno. That's certainly on the edge. A 5/7 split might be even more doable.

It's certainly something I'll keep in the back of my mind and keep thinking about. For now, my primary goal is to get the current model under control and on schedule—something that we've struggled with since the start, and mixing things up with a longer AP and a shorter one add too many variables to my comfort level at this point... especially when I think that we might have finally solved something with getting the AP line into a more manageable state (and no, I can't talk about that quite yet, but I will soon!).

No worries. I, for one, am interested in seeing you continue to experiment with the format the way you have so far. As such, I'd like to see a 4/8 or 5/7 trial at some point - 'a change is as good as a rest' and all that.

I dont have a clue as to whether that would actually be successful, of course - I could also see it messing with some of those rhythms you've developed (like working out what to do in a four part AP with the deity article due in instalment 5, for example).

Use online services for online products (character builders and such). Don't make me rent information.

Can you explain this a bit more?

I ask because this is precisely how I see the DDI subscription. It's a set of online products (character builders and such) and it's not renting me information it's selling me PDFs (and renting me storage space).

The PDFs are mine to download, edit, print and use - they just won't store it for me beyond my subscription to the service.

(Obviously I'm not arguing that it should be worth it to you - we buy what we want. I just dont really understand what DDI doesnt do that you think it should as an 'online service').

It's being fought for because it's the way things have always been in D&D, and there are a bunch of people who, for that reason and that reason alone, will not tolerate a version of D&D without it.

The alternative is that it's being fought for because it's a better magic system than anything else out there, which would be a pretty tough position to take.

Don't you think this is a false dichotomy?

.
I don't think it is always the case that, when discussing rule mechanics, people will argue for or against some subsystem based on some strict scale of superiority. If the latter view really is the only alternative to nostalgia-based arguments, wouldnt it leave us all arguing for identical rules-systems? (Some 'perfect system' which is made up of all those subsystems we think are 'the best').

For my part, I like the fact that different RPGs use different systems. Thus, I dont really have a conception of 'the best magic system' that I would argue for - I like having a range to choose from. As such, I might argue for a retention of Vancian magic in D&D since I'm not getting it in any of the other systems I play (This is more a hypothetical to make a point - as it happens I'm somewhat indifferent to this specific topic. Vancian magic doesnt 'make sense' to me, but it doesnt bug me either).

James Jacobs wrote:

In addition... the middle adventures are the easy ones. The HARDEST part of an AP is starting it and ending it, because that involves more than just adventure development. Starting it requires the creation of an outline and concepts for the entire thing—a process that takes a LOT of work. Ending it requires the creation of a "Continuing the Campaign" article. Increasing those two sets of tasks to 3 times a year instead of 2 times would make it more difficult to pull off a monthly AP product, and as you can see by the fact that we're constantly struggling with keeping the thing on schedule... ANYTHING that makes it more complicated to produce is not really an option.

Especially, as in the case of doing 3 four-parters, that change would not only increase complexity, but result in an overall poor reaction from most of our customers, who, if anything, are asking for LONGER adventure paths overall (in that, as mentioned above, folks want APs that go to 20th level).

We've taken more steps recently to address the fact that our current methods of producing an AP aren't as efficient as they need to be, and I'm confident that over the course of 2012 we'll be able to get back on schedule and, more importantly, STAY on schedule—I can't really talk too much about those plans for the moment, but once we're comfortably on schedule... THAT'S the point to start thinking about making things more complicated. And even then I'd step carefully.

One 4-parter, and one 8-parter. Shut up the fans of simple and epic all in one year.

I'd be interested to hear Paizo's take on experimenting with a 4/8 split for a year.

I can appreciate the fact that the "bookend" episodes of an AP require considerably more work and this solution seems to avoid that problem. Plus it stretches the usual parameters of APs rather than totally reinventing them, which seems to be Paizo's preferred method of experimentation.

One problem I could imagine would be that the two groups you list (the 'we want short-and-sweet APs' crowd and the 'we want to go all the way to 20th level +' crowd) might be more motivated to drop the AP they're not interested in.

I do. I dont generally face the 'what if the internet is down' problem, since I usually browse articles/adventures and download those I'm interested in.

It's a bummer that so much content is PDF only, but at $8 a month (?), it's a pretty insignificant cost.

Having said that, the biggest drawcard for me that WoTC's model offers which Paizo's doesnt is the Character Builder and Monster builder. I'd pay $8 a month just for those two, to be frank.

If you buy Pathfinder APs over Wizards' in house adventures then you know the reason why you should support Wizards going OGL for 5th Edition. it would allow PAIZO to produce APs for 5th Edition.

Paizo's Adventure Paths have always been better than Wizards' written adventures. I know, you can say you can support both at the same time, but it would be better for Wizards if 5th Edition was OGL for that reason. The two companies can work their Symbiont circle even in a better way. Wizards can spit out rule books and Paizo can spit out APs designed for 5th Edition. The two companies prosper. That way, we all win.

I dont have any knowledge of their plans or inclinations, of course, but I would be astonished if Paizo were to follow this course of action, even if 5E was released under the OGL.

Paizo have built a really successful system and are providing it with extremely high quality support. Given they're leery of even providing a Sci-Fi take on PF (or any other genre) wouldnt they be even more worried about supporting someone else's system?

I'd be sad if they followed this path (in some irrational way), since I value PF for it's own sake and think it would somehow devalue Paizo's achievement over the last few years were they to devote energy and resources to supporting another company's ruleset.

Having said that, I do generally use Paizo's flavor material and adventures for 4E anyhow, and I'll be surprised if the conversion job into 5E isnt as easy as the current edition.

But-- the designers and you are right-- there is far too much argument over all the little things that divide us, rather than the parts of role-playing games that we all have in common-- and I am at least as guilty as anyone else for digging into the divisive details.

Scott Betts wrote:

You said it sucked. Is there some other way we're supposed to take that, other than the usual?

In my defense here, I said "IMO, it sucked" which is, "In my opinion, it sucked"-- didn't mean to sound like I was telling you you had to agree with me. It was not to my taste-- I do accept that others did like the game.

Scott Betts wrote:

Finn K wrote:

but I wouldn't find it so g*dd**n annoying if people who favor it wouldn't make such a big deal about rubbing the name in everyone else's face, the way so many fans of 4E seem to take such pleasure in.

Rubbing the name in everyone else's face? What the hell?

Maybe this part that I posted is unfair to you-- and if so, I'm sorry-- I keep getting a little over-reactive lately (keep letting stress everywhere else in my life affect my posting habits)-- but observe what I said at the beginning of this post, and what others in favor of 4E have posted here-- attitude-wise, there's a lot of "4E IS Dungeons & Dragons, that old stuff isn't D&D anymore/get with the program!" from more than a few of the 4E fans out there. That's what I'm referring to as the 'rubbing it in everyone else's face. And to be fair, there is a lot of the "4E is NOT D&D!" flying the other way (which I'm guilty of too, in about so many words)-- so I'm gonna take a step back on that, and think about the point you've made that maybe we shouldn't keep fighting the 'edition wars' and making so much of the differences. Kind'a reminds me of how ugly and divisive modern politics is getting-- we don't need to do that to ourselves in gaming fandom.

There's bound to be some common ground here somewhere. :)

Nicely put.

All, I know is I am glad that I ordered two cases and I am considering doing three in the future but haven't decided.

I have filled in some singles from Paizo and a few off ebay and I am a happy camper.

Looking forward to the Runelords set.

Everyone has different preferences/needs, of course. Nonetheless, I thought I'd mention that I picked up three cases and will be dropping back to two on similar sized sets in the future. There are a few things I'm glad about (I'm glad to have three frost giants, for example) but overall the accumulation of ten Seelahs and seven ettins seems like an unnecessary cost in order to ensure I got the duplicates I actually wanted.

I wont pretend any kind of expert knowledge, nonetheless I'm converting Age of Worms and CoTCT and the way I generally do it is by reskinning powers from appropriate role and level monsters from the Monster Builder.

I may switch out a condition (like change a power which dazes to one which restrains or something) if it doesnt suit the theme of the monster I'm creating, but it doesnt generally require more work than that - the flavor that goes with the attack is what the players remember, anyhow.

Depending on whether I want it to be tougher or weaker, I may also tweak recharge rates or perhaps damage, but generally I just cut and paste and then rename the power.