Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Lisa Stevens: "thought exercise"


D&D 3.5/d20/OGL

151 to 165 of 165 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

KaeYoss wrote:
If it was called E&E (Encounters and Enemies or something), they couldn't cash in on brand recognition. It would be a new game in name as well as in practise.

Unless they said:

Encounters and Enemies
A Dungeons and Dragons Game


Can a game-book/module/accessory legally say "compatible with D&D3.5" (or GURPS, D6, Traveller, etc) on the cover? Or is the use of the game-system name a copyright/licensing no-no?


Unfortunately both "Dungeons & Dragons" and "D & D" are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, and therefore I suspect that anything for sale for profit featuring those trade purposes is a strict no-no without Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro's permission.

I have no idea if a sufficiently clever derivation thereof might be legally viable; you need a lawyer like Sebastian or Forgotten Prince to explain how far you can take things like that.


Here's a post from Vic Wertz that goes into some of the details:

BenS wrote:
Mike, that reminds me: why do you all refer to "the world's most popular roleplaying game" instead of just saying "D&D"? Don't tell me WOTC is requiring that of you?!

Vic replied:
It's part of the OGL: "You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark."
And the reason for that clause? From the FAQ:

Q: Why can't I indicate compatibility with a Trademark or a Registered Trademark?

A: The Open Game License expands the control a Trademark owner has over your ability to use that Trademark beyond the restrictions normally allowed by trademark law. The explicit reason this clause is included in the Open Game License is to stop people from saying that their Open Game Content is compatible with Dungeons & Dragons, or any other Wizards of the Coast game, without getting permission from Wizards of the Coast first. Of course, the clause is generic, so you can't indicate compatibility with any other company's trademarks either unless you get their permission first.


Charles Evans 25 wrote:
I have no idea if a sufficiently clever derivation thereof might be legally viable; you need a lawyer like Sebastian or Forgotten Prince to explain how far you can take things like that.

"Third Edition rules, First Edition feel."

;)

Liberty's Edge

Doc_Outlands wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
I have no idea if a sufficiently clever derivation thereof might be legally viable; you need a lawyer like Sebastian or Forgotten Prince to explain how far you can take things like that.

"Third Edition rules, First Edition feel."

;)

I have also seen For Use With Third Edition Fantasty, 3.5 Compatible, and 3.5 Fantasy Roleplaying Game.


Charles Evans 25 wrote:
WotC/Hasbro co-operation could make it much easier for Paizo to produce a quality product, in terms of ground that would otherwise have to be gone over by Paizo 'reinventing wheels' to avoid IP infringements.

Are we talking about the same wotc/hasbro that takes forever to give Paizo and other companies the new license to look at? Something they charge for, and said they wanted to do months before?

I'd rather Paizo will reinvent wheels, or they have to wait to get wizards' wheel until everyone else uses anti-grav vehicles. ;P

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

(2) Keep an option for play that is as close to 3.5, and something that could be called 'D & D' as possible; every major alteration made will be a potential loss of customers loyal to the 3.5 brand and to whatever particular detail is being adjusted.

Agreed. For the sake of compatibility.

Charles Evans 25 wrote:
Yes it is may be hard for those who don't like particular parts of 3.5 but are otherwise loyal to the edition to believe, but there are some customers out there who do like to be able to grapple RAW for example, or love 'save or die' effects in their games.

That can be easily fixed: Just put rules variants into the books. Put them in sidebards right beside the orignal rules (or some other appropriate place).

Simplified grapple, ways to fix save-or-die without turning D&D into My Little Pony - the Love RPG for Little Girls, and so on and so forth, different massive damage thresholds (and the idea to play without it) or staggered/dying/dead thresholds...

And in case you're interested:

I turned save-or-die into save-or-dying (fail the save for anything that would otherwise just kill you will put you down to -9 HP - close to death but not dead yet)

I uses Monte's condition thresholds: 0 to -(con mod) is staggered, -(con mod+1) to -(con score-1) is dying, and -(con score) is dead.

If your con is below 10, you use the old numbers: 0 is staggered, -1 to -9 is dying, -10 is dead.

Stuff like this would be very easy to introduce, wouldn't change the stuff you put into modules at all, and it would be a decent attampt to try and please everyone.


KaeYoss wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
WotC/Hasbro co-operation could make it much easier for Paizo to produce a quality product, in terms of ground that would otherwise have to be gone over by Paizo 'reinventing wheels' to avoid IP infringements.

Are we talking about the same wotc/hasbro that takes forever to give Paizo and other companies the new license to look at? Something they charge for, and said they wanted to do months before?

KaeYoss:

To clarify, I did open suggestion (1) in my post (which you quote from above) with the phrase 'If at all reasonably possible...'; the thought had occured to me that owing to obstruction from the Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro end of things (especially from the Hasbro senior management and legal department) it might be little more than an idle dream.
I put (1) in, however, because it frankly concerns me how much time it might take out of the small Paizo team's working days having to reinvent those wheels*.

Edit:
*I am aware that the work needed for the Golarion Campaign Setting has reportedly occupied a huge chunk of Erik Mona's time of late, but the rewriting and play-testing of 'crunch' integral to the 3.5 system I fear would be horribly labour intensive by comparison even to that.

The Exchange

Fake Healer wrote:
Except that Paizo is already bigger than most of the little guys and has a very devoted fanbase to power them into the market, most likely placing them in a position to be the top company besides WotC.

Devotion is not enough to keep a commercial enterprise moving - just ask the Browncoats.

I believe Paizo could design a solid OGL game and the devoted customers would eat it up, but is that really enough to make it economically viable?


crosswiredmind wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:
Except that Paizo is already bigger than most of the little guys and has a very devoted fanbase to power them into the market, most likely placing them in a position to be the top company besides WotC.

Devotion is not enough to keep a commercial enterprise moving - just ask the Browncoats.

I believe Paizo could design a solid OGL game and the devoted customers would eat it up, but is that really enough to make it economically viable?

That IS THE QUESTION that I'm sure is running constantly through Lisa's, Erik's, James' and the others mind while considering their options.

Liberty's Edge

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
alleynbard wrote:
Will most D&D players move on to 4e? Of course they will.
Frankly, I'm doubting this piece of conventional wisdom anymore. Both here and ENWorld, polls are about 20-30% saying they want 4E while 50-60% saying they want 3.5. That does not bode will for Wizards. There is enough information for people to make an informed guess as to what they will do in the future. Granted, we don't know the whole story, but the basics are out there. About half or more are rejecting the game. I wonder about the health of Wizards next year.

I agree with that thought in principle. There are so many factors at play I am not sure those numbers will pan out in the end. There is a silent majority that has yet to speak and won't so do until the books are released. While you can extrapolate their actions with smaller test samples I don't think we have a "pure" enough sampling to do that. I could be absolutely wrong though.

I do think you have a good point and your thought has the potential to bear fruit. I think the pending/current recession of the American economy is going to make this release doubly difficult.

Even if the game is successful for industry standards I can't imagine the D&D brand is ever going to perform the way Hasbro hopes it will. I just don't think it is possible to meet those kind of demands, especially right now as Americans start tightening their belts.

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

alleynbard wrote:
I just don't think it is possible to meet those kind of demands, especially right now as Americans start tightening their belts.

Gas at $3/gallon or more + $120 for all new core book = More americans playing 3.5 for the rest of the year. Interesting Math.

Compare that $120 with a $20 Pathfiner Chronicles Gazetter and suddenly things look mighty good for Paizo.

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

crosswiredmind wrote:
Devotion is not enough to keep a commercial enterprise moving - just ask the Browncoats.

*Sad little Kobold curls up in his brown coat.*

The Exchange

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Devotion is not enough to keep a commercial enterprise moving - just ask the Browncoats.
*Sad little Kobold curls up in his brown coat.*

Yep - sometimes being a passionate fan stinks. A Paizo OGL rule set could ROCK and it could still flop if the market isn't there to keep it rolling.


Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Edit:

*I am aware that the work needed for the Golarion Campaign Setting has reportedly occupied a huge chunk of Erik Mona's time of late, but the rewriting and play-testing of 'crunch' integral to the 3.5 system I fear would be horribly labour intensive by comparison even to that.

That brings us to the question of "Will that take more, less, or roughly the same amount of time as learning/playing/altering the 4th Edition rules to be able to continue Golarion without to much world shaking."


crosswiredmind wrote:
Devotion is not enough to keep a commercial enterprise moving - just ask the Browncoats.

It worked for Jericho, and others. But apparently only for CBS...

Liberty's Edge

Ok, time to be greedy and selfish.

I don't have a clue as to whether going 3.P would be the best business move for Paizo, but I would personally love it if they would. Having a viable, living, rules set that was a close cousin of 3.5, my particular game of choice, would be great for me and my groups. We would all like it a lot, since by and large, everything we've seen out of 4e has been discouraging us from converting. I say, Viva la Resistance! Paizo would be doing us a great favor by continuing the DnD that we all know and love. It may not be the most money-making move, but what if I were to ask pretty please, with sugar on top?

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

crosswiredmind wrote:
A Paizo OGL rule set could ROCK and it could still flop if the market isn't there to keep it rolling.

Funny thing is, I believe the same could be said for 4E. The polls on both here and ENWorld, IMO, don't foretell a great future for the game, atleast in the near future.

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

Disenchanter wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Devotion is not enough to keep a commercial enterprise moving - just ask the Browncoats.
It worked for Jericho, and others. But apparently only for CBS...

And Family Guy. How many times did that show go off the air the first 3 seasons?

Scarab Sages Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Disenchanter wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Devotion is not enough to keep a commercial enterprise moving - just ask the Browncoats.
It worked for Jericho, and others. But apparently only for CBS...

Yeah, I mean, it's not like we can save up a ton of cash and send Wizards a couple tons of whatever the last word of the last 3.5 book was. And even then, it would get less press than the peanuts.

EDIT: Though, in all fairness, after Firefly was canceled, it did have another movie after that... and a comic book... and another comic book coming soon.

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

Modera wrote:
EDIT: Though, in all fairness, after Firefly was canceled, it did have another movie after that... and a comic book... and another comic book coming soon.

And an RPG.


Lisa:
You must have some thoughts by now on at least whether or not it would be possible for 'Second Darkness' to be 4E; indeed I suspect that work may have started with writers having been given guidelines 'write expecting that Paizo will if at all possible using rule-set blah-di-blah'. Would it be possible for us to have an announcement regarding Second Darkness (with *strong* disclaimers if the AP is to be 3.5 that this decision has had to be taken now solely for publishing schedule reasons, and has no bearing on whether or not Paizo will go 4E)?

The Exchange

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
A Paizo OGL rule set could ROCK and it could still flop if the market isn't there to keep it rolling.
Funny thing is, I believe the same could be said for 4E. The polls on both here and ENWorld, IMO, don't foretell a great future for the game, atleast in the near future.

Very true. The factor to consider is the depth of the pockets. 4E could falter and WotC/Hasbro could then ramp up the marketing machine or make a deal with Toys'R'Us or Walmart to get a "basic" game onto stores around the country.

WotC can flex muscles that Paizo (and any other game company) does not have.

In my first post to this thread I suggested that any real success would most likely come from a multi-faceted approach with a variety of products backed up by a marketing effort on a fairly large scale.

Here is an example - I bought TSR Dragon Dice a while back. I liked the game. It was a fun little diversion. I pulled it out the other day and thought to myself - I wonder if I can find someone that still has some for sale. It turns out that some company actually bought the rights to the game and they are making new dice. I had no idea. Here is a game I liked and there is a company still making it. I thought I would have to crawl through the depths of ebay to get more dice. The company never really made any meaningful marketing push so (according to a Dragon Dice message board) the player base has been steadily shrinking even though people still love to play.

WotC is capable of getting the attention of a broad audience - and they can keep a flagging game going if they need to. I can't think of any company in this industry that can do that.

Liberty's Edge

crosswiredmind wrote:


WotC is capable of getting the attention of a broad audience - and they can keep a flagging game going if they need to. I can't think of any company in this industry that can do that.

I agree with your point. Wizards has much more clout. I guess the question that remains to be seen is if Wizards is on the path TSR went down all those years ago or will they remain the industry powerhouse. Will a stumble with 4e be different than TSR's fumbling of 2e? Will Hasbro just cut the property loose if it does not perform well or will they be able to shift marketing strategies to garner more support?

I guess I feel like there is a still a broad enough audience for 3.5 material and I think Paizo has the ability to keep it going. I would like to think the OGL throws all previous pre-conceptions out the window. Whether or not it is worth it is the real question. I think it is but I can admit it might be a gamble. I can also admit a great deal of bias in this discussion.

A strong marketing push and explicit branding would be needed. Paizo would have to walk that fine line between appealing to a core audience and changing enough so that the game is appealing to distributors and store owners. That is a difficult one to tread. On top of it all they need to maintain that core and produce material that will help that core audience grow. How do you seperate yourself from a passing edition and yet still appeal to the people who love that edition?

We are basically saying the same thing. I think Paizo might have enough clout to make it work. They are still getting product on the shelves of FLGS even though store owners seem understandably reluctant to stock new d20 third party material. Their sales are still strong in face of the 4e announcement because they produce such fantastic product. And they have a reputation worth its weight in gold.

I guess my question to you would be, do you think Paizo has the ability to blaze this trail? And why do you hold that opinion? I can agree that a P20 product might fail and Paizo would have a hard time pulling out of that downward spiral. But is a failure of that magnitude really possible? Even if it does tank, are there other avenues that Paizo can take that simulate the attempts of Wizards to save a failing product on a smaller scale? Sure they can't flood Walmart and Toys R Us but are there are tactics they can engage in that would have similar result?

So far I think your points have been salient and insightful and I am interested to learn more.

Liberty's Edge

alleynbard wrote:


So far I think your points have been salient and insightful and I am interested to learn more.

I don't mean for this to sound like your points might suddenly become non-salient or that you have a habit of such things. I added the modifer "so far" with no real reason.

Don't mind me, I am a little touchy after reading the Is this board really how Paizo wants to be represented? thread and I want to be careful that I am saying what I mean. I took a lot of what was said to heart and I want to make sure I am respectful of other people's thoughts.

With that little piece of paranoia out of the way, let the conversation continue. :)


crosswiredmind wrote:

Very true. The factor to consider is the depth of the pockets. 4E could falter and WotC/Hasbro could then ramp up the marketing machine or make a deal with Toys'R'Us or Walmart to get a "basic" game onto stores around the country.

WotC can flex muscles that Paizo (and any other game company) does not have.

I hope Hasbro does flex those muscles and makes a concerted push on 4th edition- a Saturday Morning cartoon and more.

Why they failed to do so first time round, when they first acquired the IP, baffles me.

Liberty's Edge

Because they're not in the business of making cartoons. So, they'd have to find someone interested in making it, and someone else to air it. If they could wave a magic wand and get free publicity (or better, to be paid to allow free publicity through a licensing agreement) they'd probably jump at the chance. At least, if they could be sure it would be done right. Let's face it- D&Dis a well known trademark, but being known for a good role-playing game doesn't automatically translate into popular anything else. I'd rather see a movie based on D&D called Keep on the Borderlands than the Dungeons & Dragons movie. And so would people whothink D&D (and said players) are lame (T-mobile).


DeadDMWalking wrote:
I'd rather see a movie based on D&D called Keep on the Borderlands than the Dungeons & Dragons movie.

Kevin MacDonald as the bumbling wizard

Steve Buscemi as the rogue with the heart of gold
Michele Yeoh as the martial cleric
and, of course
Samuel L Jackson as the party leader (fighter? badass paladin?)


DudeMonkey wrote:


Samuel L Jackson as the party leader (fighter? badass paladin?)

I god enough of those motherf-ing dragons in those motherf-ing dungeons!

The Exchange

alleynbard wrote:
I guess my question to you would be, do you think Paizo has the ability to blaze this trail? And why do you hold that opinion?

I believe that Paizo's editorial and design philosophy make trail blazing possible. They have top notch writing, artwork, and product design. They are also agile enough to adapt to the shifting needs of their audience. They have whip-smart people in their front office.

With the right funding and the right market research they are more than capable IMHO of giving WotC a run for its money. The real variable in this is the ability to gather the funding to take the talent that they have and blaze that trail.

alleynbard wrote:
I can agree that a P20 product might fail and Paizo would have a hard time pulling out of that downward spiral. But is a failure of that magnitude really possible?

That is where robust market and "user" research comes in. The devoted Paizoans (Paizites?) would certainly support the product but is there enough demand out there?

I go back to the demise of Firefly. The film Serenity was made possible because of the sales figures for the Firefly DVDs. The sales of the Serenity DVD and subsequent special edition were not strong enough to green light a sequel or a return of the show.

Family Guy was also dead and burried and had a similar revival based on DVD sales. The difference there was that DVD sales stayed strong.

In the case of P20 there are no canary-in-a-coal-mine products to test like the DVD sales for Serenity or Family Guy. To understand the risk of failure Paizo would either have to run a series of market research efforts, or it would need to be willing to jump in and hope that the feedback from their loyal customers actually reflects the greater market.

Blazing a trail can never be free from risk but that does not mean it can't be managed - Paizo has IMHO the ability to manage that risk.

alleynbard wrote:
Even if it does tank, are there other avenues that Paizo can take that simulate the attempts of Wizards to save a failing product on a smaller scale? Sure they can't flood Walmart and Toys R Us but are there are tactics they can engage in that would have similar result?

I would say that a diverse product line and a solid marketing plan can help to absorb the loss. Also, as much as some may not like it, adding a product line that supports 4E could not hurt. I am not suggesting a total conversion but 4E Paizo mods and accessories would sell.

alleynbard wrote:
So far I think your points have been salient and insightful and I am interested to learn more.

Thanks. You have asked some great and thought provoking questions. This has been a great exchange. I look forward to your thoughts on this.

Liberty's Edge

Coridan wrote:
GregH wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
as 4E is rounded out and some of the resentment isn't so fresh.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I can tell you that there is actually no resentment at all from me. I don't hate WotC for "killing" Dungeon or Dragon (I miss the mags, but c'est la vie...

I'm actually glad they dropped Dungeon/Dragon, I like Pathfinder a whole lot better. It's fun to have an active role in the birth of a new world.

I'd happily subscribe to Pathfinder AND dragon if I could.


crosswiredmind wrote:
I would say that a diverse product line and a solid marketing plan can help to absorb the loss. Also, as much as some may not like it, adding a product line that supports 4E could not hurt. I am not suggesting a total conversion but 4E Paizo mods and accessories would sell.

Now the question is, will that be even legal to do under WotC's new licensing agreement?

The Exchange

pres man wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
I would say that a diverse product line and a solid marketing plan can help to absorb the loss. Also, as much as some may not like it, adding a product line that supports 4E could not hurt. I am not suggesting a total conversion but 4E Paizo mods and accessories would sell.
Now the question is, will that be even legal to do under WotC's new licensing agreement?

No one really knows. To assume that it is or is not would be pure speculation.


It would be a dream come true if Paizo continued to support 3.5. Being a pessimist I have the feeling that 4E will be where the money is and Paizo will (unless the GSL is incredibly restrictive) have to make the switch...

But, yeah, I grew up playing GW games. Here in the UK, the majority of gamers get into the miniatures hobby through GW. A lot of people also get burned out with GW after a few years and move onto other games - anyone who's spent time on the miniatures boards will know that GW's nickname is the 'Evil Empire'. Common gripes include GW's escalating prices, the marketing and the unending cycle of new editions and army lists.

GW has no real competitor, just as D&D has no real competitor. There are obvious parallels. Perhaps lots of people will become sick of Wizards too, and there will be a steady stream of new customers. Could Paizo provide a home for these people and still make money? I don't know.

Liberty's Edge

crosswiredmind wrote:


In the case of P20 there are no canary-in-a-coal-mine products to test like the DVD sales for Serenity or Family Guy. To understand the risk of failure Paizo would either have to run a series of market research efforts, or it would need to be willing to jump in and hope that the feedback from their loyal customers actually reflects the greater market.

I wonder if Paizo has the ability to perform that level of market research? I would assume they have some avenune in which to investigate the current market but, outside of Wizards, the hobby game industry really isn't known for in-depth research.

crosswiredmind wrote:
I would say that a diverse product line and a solid marketing plan can help to absorb the loss. Also, as much as some may not like it, adding a product line that supports 4E could not hurt. I am not suggesting a total conversion but 4E Paizo mods and accessories would sell.

Agreed. If they do decide to go forward on P20 I think a diverse product line will help. Fortunately they have the item cards, flip mats, battle maps, and other edition neutral lines already in production. Assuming those established lines remain popular they should feel confident that some risk taking could be worth it.

I also agree that a small line of 4e material is a good idea, just for the sake of maintaining a safety net. While the boundaries of the GSL are an unknown factor, I don't think Wizards will tell a company they can't produce both 3.5 and 4e material so long as that material isn't duplicated. More likely the license will put a restriction on utilizing Wizard's material released in the 3.5 SRD and not yet released under the 4e GSL. So no "early release" frost giants or anything like that. In addition, I imagine dual-statted material, either in the same book or by releasing two different books, will be restricted as well. I am sure the production of miniature games using the 4e engine will be prohibited. But that is purely speculative. I could be quite wrong.

If I'm right though, I wonder if releasing different system material under the same brand and trade dress is acceptable. Could you release two different Pathfinder modules under different systems or would you have to create a new line to accomodate 4e material? Even if the restriction isn't there, I doubt you would want to muddy your product lines like that. That would be too confusing for the consumer. Just following a train of thought to its conclusion.

crosswiredmind wrote:

I go back to the demise of Firefly. The film Serenity was made possible because of the sales figures for the Firefly DVDs. The sales of the Serenity DVD and subsequent special edition were not strong enough to green light a sequel or a return of the show.

This is a really good example of how vocal fans might not necessarily lead to a triumphant return. I think there are some great lessons to learn from Firefly. But you're right, the RPG industry really doesn't have something that is applicable. Editions change and games fade but none have really come back from the press of popular demand to show it can be done. Every so often we get a resurrection of a formerly popular game. Those either go really well or just die an obscure death. But it is not quite the same thing.

crosswiredmind wrote:
The devoted Paizoans (Paizites?) would certainly support the product but is there enough demand out there?

I think that's where the "fine line" comes in. How do you appeal to a mass of loyal 3.x fans while creating something "new" to grow your audience? I am confident that if P20 is produced then the term "3.5" will have to die. d20 is okay, OGL is fine, but that edition number should not be included in the marketing spree. Allusions must be made to the game's origin but at no point would you want it to look old or outmoded. Compatiblity with a huge amount of material both old and new would need to be stressed. You would also want to limit the amount of "baked in" flavor you provide in the core books.

I have heard it said many times before; an new edition's biggest enemy is not other games, a company really needs to worry about the competition provided by the most recent previous edition. With 2e, D&D was near death. Anything would have been seen as an improvement. Changing seemed to be the right choice.

With 4e I think the battle is a little more elevated. I am not rendering judgment on the necessity of 4e. At this point, I don't care either way. But I do think for every person ready for a change there is another person absolutely in love with 3.5 and won't switch. Every edition change leaves people behind. The difference this time lies in the OGL and the ability of companies to please that abandoned audience. Will the audience be larger this time around because of that fact? Is the promise of continued support enough to keep the 3.5 market viable?

I think the only way to find out is for someone to take that chance.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32 , Star Voter 2014

Ross Byers wrote:
Pathfinder already isn't branded with the D&D label. Just market it as Pathfinder Chronicles, a d20 roleplaying game.

I realize that lots of other people did too, but...

Called it!

(I just never dared hope that'd it'd actually happen.)

Liberty's Edge

Ross Byers wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Pathfinder already isn't branded with the D&D label. Just market it as Pathfinder Chronicles, a d20 roleplaying game.

I realize that lots of other people did too, but...

Called it!

(I just never dared hope that'd it'd actually happen.)

Yes, it felt good to realize my pulse on the industry wasn't as flawed as I feared it was.


Lisa:
Some more thoughts:
My current feeling is that you really need people to start playtesting things for you, over coming the Easter holidays (UK nomenclature, I realise you may have a different name for it over there in the US).
Then, you need to keep things going with continuing discussion threads; maybe have a theme for each week, such as 'revising grappling, week #1', '-10 hp or more?, week #2', and so forth, although with threads continuing to run from earlier weeks.
For the next 72 hours or so, there may be people on these boards convinced that you can walk on water; use any power that this gives you wisely!
Hopefully those looking forward to 4E will now get some peace in their discussions on the Paizo boards. :D
You may have to assign someone to help fans come good on preparing conversions of RotR (and other Paizo products) for 4E.

Good luck! I'm not sure that you'll get much sleep over the next few days, but please try to take enough to keep a clear head- even if you do have a trace of elven blood.


Arggh! I went a whole month without posting on this thread. Okay, I have been busy on some other threads.... :)

I recently posted on the 'So what should Paizo's 4E brand/line be?' thread, (because I felt it was most the product in theory which Paizo could do the most good for 4E with) that I thought something along the lines of a gift-box set for families (parents to run with their children, most importantly) would be a good idea. I posted that because I thought it was (rather than regular modules or some campaign setting) what I thought a company such a Paizo with friendly messageboards and staff (and a reputation for high quality product) could most suitably do for 4E. However I am not optimistic about the chances of Wizards of the Coast (or at least Hasbro) letting such a product 'out of house'.
In the event of Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro not even considering such an offer from Paizo, would it be possible for Paizo to think about a project such as this, for two to three years time maybe, to support Pathfinder? Some very basic rules, cardboard markers for scenery and counters for characters/monsters, and a ruler (for measuring distances) plus dice? Maybe a 'rescue the kindly old toymaker from the bad goblins who have kidnapped him' campaign with several scenarios where the players track the goblins down and deal with them and their minions/allies.
Presumably further adventures could be downloaded, from online, and a section of the forums (or even its own messageboard) allocated to the game.
This is a crazy idea which I've had; I don't know if it's workable, but there's no point in having it and then not telling it to someone.

Edit:
Trey informs me that Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro have a 'starter' set lined up for 4E.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
...something along the lines of a gift-box set for families (parents to run with their children, most importantly) would be a good idea...

I'd love to see a Pathfinder Starter Set eventually. Great way to bring new and young players into the game.


Mosaic wrote:
I'd love to see a Pathfinder Starter Set eventually. Great way to bring new and young players into the game.

If it's self-sufficient (i.e. with complete rules, contrarily to WotC's 3.X starter sets), simple and affordable, I would seriously consider getting Starter Sets for little nephews and cousins, personally.

A "basic boxed set" for Pathfinder? That'd be awesome.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Yes, please do this. The perfect way to introduce new people to the hobby.

Scarab Sages Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

I play 3.5 and now I'm starting my 8yo twins on the Pathfinder Alpha...

I'm also thinking of participating/running Pathfinder at my local game store.

Others will be running Pathfinder games at our local game stores. Many people don't pay attention to what's going on, the casual gamers are going to be shocked by the change.

If WotC does not attend GenCon, as they're currently posturing, then Pathfinder may be able to get extra people to steer away from going to 4E, especially if lots of people run Pathfinder events at GenCon, wish I could...but...yeah, unemployed...may even have to drop my subscription to Pathfinder soon...=(


Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:
If WotC does not attend GenCon, as they're currently posturing, then Pathfinder may be able to get extra people to steer away from going to 4E, especially if lots of people run Pathfinder events at GenCon, wish I could...but...yeah, unemployed...may even have to drop my subscription to Pathfinder soon...=(

This is the kind of thinking that hurts the overall industry more than helps it. PRPG can't compete with 4e in any meaningful way. New players will trickle in to the PRPG/OGL industry, but 4e is shaping up to be such a powerful system for telling high fantasy stories that new players to the industry will likely gravitate that way. 4e takes the lessons of the body of fantasy gaming knowledge collected over the past 35 years and applies them. PRPG/3.5 does not. It was a major step forward at the time, and its major legacy is the creation of a full-time gaming industry that orbited, but was not directly sponsored by, the company that made D&D. This allowed the lessons to be learned that led to 4e.

It's not a competition, really.


DudeMonkey wrote:
Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:
If WotC does not attend GenCon, as they're currently posturing, then Pathfinder may be able to get extra people to steer away from going to 4E, especially if lots of people run Pathfinder events at GenCon, wish I could...but...yeah, unemployed...may even have to drop my subscription to Pathfinder soon...=(

This is the kind of thinking that hurts the overall industry more than helps it. PRPG doesn't compete with 4e in any meaningful way. New players will trickle in to the PRPG/OGL industry, but 4e is shaping up to be such a powerful system for telling high fantasy stories that new players to the industry will likely gravitate that way. 4e takes the lessons of the body of fantasy gaming knowledge collected over the past 35 years and applies them. PRPG/3.5 does not, but it's offering is the 35 years of history that have been collected. It was a major step forward at the time, and its major legacy is the creation of a full-time gaming industry that orbited, but was not directly sponsored by, the company that made D&D. This allowed the lessons to be learned that led to 4e.

It's not a competition, really.


DudeMonkey wrote:
4e takes the lessons of the body of fantasy gaming knowledge collected over the past 35 years and applies them. PRPG/3.5 does not, but it's offering is the 35 years of history that have been collected.

Keep telling yourself that.


DudeMonkey wrote:

4e takes the lessons of the body of fantasy gaming knowledge collected over the past 35 years and applies them. PRPG/3.5 does not. (...)

It's not a competition, really.

I smell contradiction here.

Why compare one and the other, and pretend one is such a "powerful improvement"* over the other, if you don't think there's some sort of competition between the two?

I personally think there is no competition. PRPG/3E and 4E are based on radically different design principles. They will therefore each attract their own audiences, with the occasional gamer who happens to enjoy changes of pace and likes both.

Pretending that Paizo is going after WotC or trying to compete against 4E couldn't be farther from the truth, really.

* PS: the notion of "improvement" of game mechanics is ludicrous, really. The audience of a game like D&D changes over time. There are also marketing decisions influencing the design as far as the target audience is concerned. What we have here is an attempt to adapt a game to new targets. It's not "better" or "worse". 4E is deemed necessary by WotC because the needs and interests of current users change first, because of marketing patterns in the industry second (multiple editions to keep selling core books over time) and because the company tries to adapt to the demands of the market (and thus tries to cater to potential new targets) third. Any reason put forward speaking of "improvement" and "coolness" of the new system is just marketing placement for the product. Let's smell the coffee, here.

151 to 165 of 165 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 3.5/d20/OGL / Lisa Stevens: "thought exercise" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in D&D 3.5/d20/OGL

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.