|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
So don't make it sound like I'm invalidating anyone, that was not my intent. Sorry if that was unclear. I guess I see a difference between want and need.
Sorry for getting my hackles up.
If you want to be technical, I guess I don't need indoor plumbing, but I sure as hell wouldn't willing live without it.
Bill Dunn wrote:
That, and the latter being (poorly) disguised as the former:
"This game is clearly for ROLLPlayers..."
The kicker is that monsters don't actually follow the rules for characters, because whenever a designer wants to fudge the numbers, he simply throws in a "racial bonus."
Besides, why would monster design require the same level of detail character design does? Do we really care whether the blacksmith has knowledge (local)? No, we don't. We only care about craft (blacksmith). Do I care whether that orc has X ranks of stealth? Nope. All I care about is the final #, not how you got there.
Designing monsters using character rules is crazy talk.
Also, assumed bonuses need to die in a fire. :)
PF 2 is not inevitable. Neither is humanity living to see tomorrow.
Both are quite likely, however.
And let's face it, that's really what this thread is about: People who don't want a new edition -- ever -- arguing that, despite how this has gone every other time, it will be different this time.
Maybe I'm just grumpy this morning, but...good luck with that.
Chocolate Thief wrote:
Unfortunately as a public sector worker here in the UK where a new Conservative government has just been elected I am getting poorer all the time. I'll have to cut at least one sub. Oh well, with a sense of perspective that is not what I call hardship.
I wouldn't expect things to get better. Stateside conservative ideology pretty much views public sector employees as being welfare recipients. :-(
I'd actually like to see the return of the PHB/DMG split.
That would allow things like archetypes and traits to be added to the Core Rules (aka the PHB) without making the book even larger. Between re-organization, re-writing, and trimming the GM stuff, they should be able to get the Core Rules down to 384 pages (or even 320) pages (and maybe even down to $39.99).
Sure a separate GM's guide would mean a higher barrier to entry for GMs, but it would probably be a win for most players. It would certainly make for a stronger binding. ;-)
"Compelling" is a matter of opinion. Personally, I'd find a better-organized Core Rule Book compelling (though I'd certainly prefer more substantive change).
I would love a new edition. I'd like that new edition to look a lot more like the Beginner Box than the Core currently does. I'd also like a new edition to do away with many of the fiddly bits like "you can draw a weapon as part of a move action, but only if your BAB is +1 or higher"...which is like 95%+ of all characters. And for heaven's sake, please fix level 12+.
In a world where a Decantur of Endless Water is a thing that can easily be bought (which it can, according to the item availability rules in the CRB), the need for proximity to a water source for, say, a viable settlement is completely obviated. To say nothing of the fact that the decantur as described can easily be used as a source of power as well as water.
Once you start down that path, a practically endless series of socioeconomic changes quickly results in a the world that is, if not completely unrecognizable, certainly very unlike Golarion.
Again, it really is best not to look too closely at this sort of thing. :)
Looking at the specific maps in the first batch, I'm torn, because I already have most of them. However, I want the line to succeed so some other maps -- maps I don't already have -- will be re-printed.
As I no longer have ship, I'll be buying that one for sure...the others I'll have to consider more carefully.
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.