|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Paizo is still small in the grand scheme of things (though I suspect it is rather large for an RPG company).
But as for money farming...I think they actually go out of their way to be reasonable, especially with the price of the PDFs of their hardcovers. You could buy the Core Rulebook and Bestiary in PDF ($20) and play for years. Would they like to sell you more? Of course. But it's not like they wouldn't still be glad to have you playing Pathfinder just because you don't spend $100 a month.
As capitalism goes, Paizo is about as benign as it gets.
I think they should forget the "instantly recognizable as a D&D movie" bit. Just make a genuinely good fantasy movie and the rest will take care of itself.
But it is the OGL that accompanied 3rd edition that enabled *all* of those to exist, but opening up terms like hit points, armor class, etc.
I'm honestly not sure what your point here is, so I'll reiterate mine: Wotc has nothing to gain by not releasing 5E under the OGL, as a clone could be built with the existing OGL. They only manage to discourage participation (which is, perhaps, their goal) but muddying the legal waters.
If only those two things weren't mutually exclusive...
Charlie Bell wrote:
One thing you have to realize about the OGL is that while it resulted in a huge renaissance in TTRPGs as a whole, it also looks like a stunningly bad strategy in hindsight. How much market share did WotC lose to Paizo as a result of the OGL? If you're the WotC guy trying to pitch a 5E OGL to his boss, that boss is going to ask if maybe you'd like to go ahead and give Lisa Stevens the whole company while you're at it. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Never mind that there are plenty of reasons WotC lost market share--customer satisfaction being at the top of that list--your typical exec is going to see the OGL as a market leader's growth strategy that failed.
There is no "doing the same thing," because the OGL cat is out of the bag. No matter what, you still have to compete with 3E WITH the OGL. Not OGLing your new system simply hobbles it.
Also, while the OGL was necessary for Pathfinder to exist, but it didn't cause Pathfinder to beat 4E. That fiasco (from WotC's point of view) came from the mis-managment of D&D -- exactly the bad management they're (apparently) still laboring under.
Get over the OGL. It was a WotC thing that Hasbro wanted nothing to do with.
The thing is, D&D will never mount a challenge to Pathfinder without the OGL. It simply won't happen. Maybe they're fine with that, but I can't see how that's any good for the actual D&D game (which is kinda what this thread is about, no?).
Steve Geddes wrote:
What makes you think any of those things are directives from Hasbro?
As previously noted, the PDF announcement came directly from a Hasbro Executive.
And if you pay close attention to the thinks Wizards folks say ("we want to do a license!", it becomes rather clear that something is holding them back. It makes sense that this is Hasbro.
I don't doubt for a minute that D&D is barely on Hasbro's radar, especially resource-wise. However, what I see as the problems with 5E aren't resource related:
1. Lack of PDFs. These already exist as part of the production process. At most they require some work to lock down permissions, etc. No way this is a resource issue; Hasbro simply fears digital distribution (and have said as much).
2. No OGL. Again, likely not a resource issue, as they could simply release 5E under the existing OGL. Clearly the people at Wizards want to do something with a license, but Hasbro with it's very limited understanding of the RPG market, likely forbids it. They just know that "the OGL created Pathfinder, our greatest competitor," completely missing the fact that the genie is out of the bottle, so all they're accomplishing at this point is discouraging the sort of support they *do* want (modules, etc.) out of fear of someone forking 5E (which they could already do, if determined enough).
3. No character generator. Quit trying to write software and give Herolab the license. Again, not a resource constraint. This one I really don't get, unless Hasbro thinks they should be making all that money themselves and somehow still haven't figured out that they can't do software.
In short, the mishandling of 5E is related to Hasbro's lack of understanding of the market. What they *should* is allow D&D to operate autonomously, or nearly so, but we know that isn't the case because you have Hasbro execs making statements about piracy, etc.
Will Hasbro kill D&D? I dunno. But they certainly aren't doing it any favors, at least not as an RPG. They may be great for the value of the brand.
Steve Geddes wrote:
They don't sell the actual core rules. As observed up thread, they only recently started selling the 3.5 PHB, so at this rate we can expect a PDF of the 5E PHB around 2026 (twelve years after the print release).
Steve Geddes wrote:
Here, for one. Though admittedly, this is second hand, because the first hand account formerly right here has recently gone missing. Yes, I kept that second link around just for the occasion when people asked; frankly it was so bizarre I'm surprised they kept it there as long as they did.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I gave up on them being rational a while ago.
That was my understanding.
They have explicitly stated this is the case.
It's mind-boggling stupid to think it actually makes it any harder. The lesson the music companies eventually learned - Make the product available in the format the people want at a reasonable price and you'll make far more money than you lose in piracy. Don't do so and people will pirate it just to have the format they want.
WotC is obtuse when it comes to digital distribution. It's sad, but eventually they'll adapt or die, and I've go plenty to play in the meantime.
The OP is absolutely, unequivocally correct; Pathfinder 2.0 is NOT inevitable. Humanity could be wiped out by an asteroid tomorrow.
But barring any society-shaking event -- or the complete demise of Paizo -- there will eventually be a revision of Pathfinder. Not only does it make business sense, but with 6+ additional years of experience, I'm confident Paizo could make a better game. I do expect, however, that the eventual revision will be along the lines of tightening and clean-up, and to bring some of the better ideas (traits, archetypes, etc.) into the core, rather than a radical departure.
Why wouldn't we be able to agree on that? It's self-evident. The existence of God is not contingent on anyone's belief or disbelief.
1. I've had people argue this with me before; and2. I've found it's safest not to assume anything when it comes to politics or religion. I simply often have to be reminded. :)
And that remains your opinion, not an indisputable fact.
You're right...such evidence could exist. I'm not entirely sure why no one has shared it if it does, but if and when they do, I'm quite ready to change my position. After all, the prospect of a benevolent, omnipotent deity is really quite appealing.
But I'm curious...can we agree that the existence (or non-existence) of God is a matter of fact, not opinion? That is, God as you envision him either exists, or he doesn't...he can't be real for you, and at the same time not real for me?
Pretty much. I choose to believe in a god. I don't believe there is any evidence of such a thing in our world, however. (Which is incidentally why I ignore organized religions and holy books.)
And I respect your right to believe as you do. Nor do I claim I can disprove the existence of an omnipotent god -- such a thing is manifestly impossible.
But unless/until I share whatever experience lead to this belief, I do not -- can not -- share it. Which is why I find attempts to proselytize (which, to be clear is NOT happening in this thread) to be so frustrating.
"Belief based on revelations to which I have not been privy" is not verifiable by observation, and therefore by definition not empirical. I cannot -- and do not -- deny the possibility of such.
As to the evidence...with apologies, I will not budge. There is no strong empirical case for the existence of God (which frankly, most of the theists whom I respect freely acknowledge).
Steven T. Helt wrote:
I'm bugged when people think that roleplaying is somehow a meaningful commentary on daily life. It's a hobby.
This. As an atheist, I enjoy playing characters of faith. The clarity afforded by an objectively verifiable personification of good is particularly appealing to me, probably because I do not believe such a thing can exist in the real world.
To be fair, Jaelithe did allude to atheists being annoyed by bible quotations. Part of our earlier exchange was me attempting to explain why I often find them annoying (they're often implicitly treated as evidence), rather than expressing annoyance or accusing Jaelithe of using them as such in this thread. Forgive me if the distinction seems overly fine, but I do feel my earlier comments are being somewhat mis-characterized.
To be blunt, I do not believe faith is a virtue. Rather, faith -- belief without empirical evidence -- is self-evidently antithetical to our progress as a species, especially given what the statistics reveal about its origin. However, if this thread truly isn't the place for such discussion, can we maybe tone down the rhetoric about the "other side" all around?
Yup, I got there; I was just riding the slow bus. ;-)
Edit: And I just got your last reply. I really need to start reading threads backwards before replying. :P
I can't speak for any other non-believers, but I find it irritating because in order for the bible to be divinely inspired (as it claims), we must pre-suppose the existence of god. Using the bible to prove god exists is therefore a necessarily circular argument.
So yeah...I don't think you'll get much traction citing the bible to an atheist. :P
But we've veered way off track for this thread, so I'll excuse myself.
A few amateur GMs just didn't know how to handle it and decided to raise hell about it long enough for the developers to take note.
Ah the old "only an (amateur|moron|whiner) -- very clearly in minority -- could possibly not agree with my opinion" gambit. And about such an important topic too.
Alternatively we could acknowledge that bloat and character class power levels are matters of opinion. The world has plenty of real conflict without us inventing more.
Personally I find the idea that Pathfinder doesn't have a bloat problem patently ridiculous. And judging from so-called "conga line of bloat threads" it would appear I'm not the only one.
And yet somehow I'll refrain from passive-aggressively insulting anyone's parentage. Carry on.
I've never been able to get past about episode 5 of Agents of Shield. Daredevil, on the other hand grabbed me from the first episode. Different scope/goals aside, there is much to be said for good storytelling.
BTW, what's wrong with "The Wire with masks?" The Wire is on may critics top ten lists for the best T.V. show of all time. If Daredevil even gets close it will be a first for a comic-book show.
It is basically 5E content packaged for Fantasy Grounds, which is a VTT. My understanding is that there is character generation functionality, as well as in-play support, but it all runs in the context of the VTT.
While it should come in very handy for people running a 5E game in FG, it is neither a stand-alone character generator nor an e-book "solution" (sadly).
The Fox wrote:
You have misidentified the problem. Lack of winter is not the issue at all. It is that Gen Con is at the end of July. That is Summer in most of the northern hemisphere. In Phoenix, the end of July is an entirely different season. I think it is called Damnation.
Here is someone enjoying a pleasant July stroll in Phoenix.
Nope. Everyone knows it's either Mad Max or 1984.
The right to refuse service to gays is like the right to refuse service to black people, or women, or old people. That is, for the good of society it must give way to people's right to be treated equally. Sure, you can refuse service to anyone for no reason, but you can't refuse service to someone on the basis of race, age, sex, or other protected class. Of course, the ultimate (and obvious) answer to the inevitable "sexual orientation isn't a protected class" response is to simply make sexual orientation a federally protected class. It's only a matter of time, so let's just do it already.
Edit: Some people are arguing that we have effectively already done so.
Expecting the free market to weed out charlatans -- especially before they do plenty of damage -- simply isn't realistic in a modern, hyper-specialized economy. Most consumers lack the means, time, or ability to perform, say, independent trials of experimental drugs. That's why we have an FDA.
Why is this even a discussion?
A highly regarded expert wrote: