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

DnD Next: Any reaction from the Paizo Staff?


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Cheliax

Has there been a response from the Paizo staff, either officially or personally, to WotC's announcement of a new version of DnD?


If I had to guess, I would say Yes. Probably some laughter at first, and then the feeling of elation, and then possibly some curiosity as to what it might be like. I am betting they are just as excited as we are to see what comes next.


Swordsmasher wrote:
If I had to guess, I would say Yes. Probably some laughter at first, and then the feeling of elation, and then possibly some curiosity as to what it might be like. I am betting they are just as excited as we are to see what comes next.

Well considering that the new edition will be compatible with all previous editions, I highly doubt that there was any "laughter" or "feeling of elation" coming from the Paizo camp. Curiosity definitely.

Still with that being said there is plenty of room for multiple RPG companies. The future is bright for both Wizards of the Coast and Paizo. I am really looking forward to seeing what Wizards of the Coast has to offer when they come out with 5E D&D.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Compatible with all previous editions? Yeah...we'll see how that works out.


Wellmet...

for me DnD5e is not on my radar. I like Pathfinder, less rule books to buy, more stories campaign to buy... the last good campaign that wizard cast was in 3.0 ed (huge books collection here) and it was never the quality that Paizo did...

So Paizo staffs, your strength is in your Campaigns, your world setting, so please no rule books, I only use the minimum of rules, PF RPG Rulebook, Bestiaries, Adventure path, modules, No advancedX or options... the core is fine for us... Oh and world books, source books of course.
^_^ The card is nice for the fumble and crit ; ))

Peace I go...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
joela wrote:
Has there been a response from the Paizo staff, either officially or personally, to WotC's announcement of a new version of DnD?

It's been pretty quiet. James Jacobs went as far as offering:

"No comment—Erik Mona's the guy to talk to for now about 5th Edition D&D stuff."

I dont think that means "Erik is about to make some comments" though.


We will have to wait until DDX. Between the 26 and the 29 of january the playtest will be made public. We will know if they chose 4.5, the OGL or another new rules system altogether.

I gues this is what they are waiting to see at Paizo, like all the fans. Paizo only has to fear WotC if they chose the OGL.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I'd be surprised if the OGL/GSL/somethingelse decision is made by then.

I suspect we'll just see the current ruleset, without any guidedlines for 3rd Party Publishing - though that will indeed reveal whether it's an evolution of 4th, a revisitation of 3.5 or something truly new.

Contributor

Steve Geddes wrote:
joela wrote:
Has there been a response from the Paizo staff, either officially or personally, to WotC's announcement of a new version of DnD?

It's been pretty quiet. James Jacobs went as far as offering:

"No comment—Erik Mona's the guy to talk to for now about 5th Edition D&D stuff."

I dont think that means "Erik is about to make some comments" though.

I think everyone in the industry is A). Waiting for a good look at 5th Edition, B). Waiting even more for a good look for at WotC's terms for third-party content (OGL? OGL-lite?), and C). In private NDA talks about items A & B.

I expect there will be some more talk later this month after Wizard's convention where they unveil their playtest without the NDA agreements they did with the Press in in December.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarra wrote:
Well considering that the new edition will be compatible with all previous editions,

Guys.

Guys.

5e is not going to be compatible with all previous editions. That's not even remotely possible, and they haven't said that's their goal.

What they have said is that they're shooting for a game that is compatible with the playstyles that have come to be associated with each of the editions. If you want to play the kind of character you might have played in 2e, it'll give you a way to do that. If you want to play the kind of character you might have played in 4e, it'll give you a way to do that. But it won't be rules compatible with previous editions. 5e will probably only be compatible with 5e.

Let's not start the rumor mill up going the wrong direction. Again.


What is DND NEXT? I keep hearing the term and it sounds like this may be the title for 5th edition?


SuperSlayer wrote:
What is DND NEXT? I keep hearing the term and it sounds like this may be the title for 5th edition?

The official name for whatever the next version of D&D is hasn't been announced yet. In the meantime, people are referring to it by a bunch of different names - D&D Next, 5th Edition, the next iteration of D&D, etc. Just one potential name among many, and I doubt it'll be the final title.


Glad to hear that's not the title, there is only one title for D&D, it's just a matter of how they word it. Super advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition, Dungeons & Dragons etc...


Scott Betts wrote:


Guys.

Guys.

5e is not going to be compatible with all previous editions. That's not even remotely possible, and they haven't said that's their goal.

Well I re read what Monte Cook has said and it sure sounds like it will be compatible with all previous editions. This is right from Monte...

"This isn't an attempt to get you to play Dungeons & Dragons in a new way. This is the game you've already been playing, no matter what edition or version you prefer. The goal here is to embrace all forms of the D&D experience and to not exclude anyone. Imagine a game where the core essence of D&D has been distilled down to a very simple but entirely playable-in-its-right game. Now imagine that the game offered you modular, optional add-ons that allow you to create the character you want to play while letting the Dungeon Master create the game he or she wants to run."

"So if this new endeavor is just like your favorite prior version of the game, why play this one? First, we hope you're going to enjoy the distillation of the things that make D&D the game we all love into a single, unified package, with the ability to pick and choose other options as you desire."

Again the way I read it is that it will be compatible with all previous editions.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tarra wrote:

Well I re read what Monte Cook has said and it sure sounds like it will be compatible with all previous editions. This is right from Monte...

"This isn't an attempt to get you to play Dungeons & Dragons in a new way. This is the game you've already been playing, no matter what edition or version you prefer. The goal here is to embrace all forms of the D&D experience and to not exclude anyone. Imagine a game where the core essence of D&D has been distilled down to a very simple but entirely playable-in-its-right game. Now imagine that the game offered you modular, optional add-ons that allow you to create the character you want to play while letting the Dungeon Master create the game he or she wants to run."

"So if this new endeavor is just like your favorite prior version of the game, why play this one? First, we hope you're going to enjoy the distillation of the things that make D&D the game we all love into a single, unified package, with the ability to pick and choose other options as you desire."

Again the way I read it is that it will be compatible with all previous editions.

And yet you quote the part where he says he hopes you play 5e instead of a previous edition.


And Mike Mearls stated in the $10.00 Lunch thread about character creating being like having $10.00 for lunch. Some may want the special, with X, Y, an Z all included and ready to do. Some people might want an ala carte style, picking and choosing what they feel like. And a 3rd person might want to go to the grocery store and grab all the ingredients themselves to make something. This doesn't shout to me "Play a 2E character from AD&D rules along side a 4E character with Martial Power rules".

It'll feel like playing a specific style but be inclusive with 5E rules.


ghettowedge wrote:


And yet you quote the part where he says he hopes you play 5e instead of a previous edition.

The whole point of my quote was to show that Monte Cook is eluding to the fact that the new game will be compatible with old editions of the game. Of course he wants us to buy the 5E when it comes out ;) And I am sure that it will be designed in such a way to give us incentive to buy it.

Andoran

Unless 5E somehow impacts Paizo in some sort of negative way I'm betting they have more imortant things to do lie run their own company and publish their own product before worrying what some other company does.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Swordsmasher wrote:
If I had to guess, I would say Yes. Probably some laughter at first, and then the feeling of elation, and then possibly some curiosity as to what it might be like. I am betting they are just as excited as we are to see what comes next.

You do realize that a lot of the Paizo staff are former WOTC employees right? Secondly from what we gathered by former staff responses to other things done by WOTC that yes the companies are competitors, the staff don't wish WOTC any ill will. It even seems a lot of the staff are on very friendly terms with the WOTC staff since they were long time coworkers. So I don't think that would be the reaction, it'd be more like they would wish WOTC good luck, since they wouldn't want to see their friends without a job.


Tarra wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


Guys.

Guys.

5e is not going to be compatible with all previous editions. That's not even remotely possible, and they haven't said that's their goal.

Well I re read what Monte Cook has said and it sure sounds like it will be compatible with all previous editions. This is right from Monte...

"This isn't an attempt to get you to play Dungeons & Dragons in a new way. This is the game you've already been playing, no matter what edition or version you prefer. The goal here is to embrace all forms of the D&D experience and to not exclude anyone. Imagine a game where the core essence of D&D has been distilled down to a very simple but entirely playable-in-its-right game. Now imagine that the game offered you modular, optional add-ons that allow you to create the character you want to play while letting the Dungeon Master create the game he or she wants to run."

"So if this new endeavor is just like your favorite prior version of the game, why play this one? First, we hope you're going to enjoy the distillation of the things that make D&D the game we all love into a single, unified package, with the ability to pick and choose other options as you desire."

Again the way I read it is that it will be compatible with all previous editions.

Then I'm afraid your reading of it is inaccurate. We've already been told, in no uncertain terms, that 5e will not be rules-compatible with all previous editions of D&D. It will be its own game. Their goal is to make is accessible to players of all editions, in such a way that playing 5e should still feel like playing your favorite edition of D&D.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

I actualy think 5th ed will be good for Pazio....even if popular.

With the proposed modularity of the system I would imagine WotC is going to continue to ignore any serious attempts to write adventures...which mean Pazio main stregnth will go unchallenged.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:


Then I'm afraid your reading of it is inaccurate. We've already been told, in no uncertain terms, that 5e will not be rules-compatible with all previous editions of D&D. It will be its own game. Their goal is to make is accessible to players of all editions, in such a way that playing 5e should still feel like playing your favorite edition of D&D.

Well I am just going to respectfully agree to disagree with you. Because it sure sounds that way to me. Even if they made a game that was similar to all previous editions but still not compatible. Then they would still have the problem of "edition wars" which is what they are trying to avoid.

They would still wind up with a game that renders all their previous edition's material useless. Thus creating yet another edition war.

As far as your comment of "We've already been told, in no uncertain terms, that 5e will not be rules-compatible with all previous editions of D&D." Well honestly I do not know where you get that. Maybe you are misinformed? I have followed Wizard's Legends and Lore column by Monte Cook for a long time and no where did I read were they said that. If you have seen otherwise then link it.


Tarra wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


Then I'm afraid your reading of it is inaccurate. We've already been told, in no uncertain terms, that 5e will not be rules-compatible with all previous editions of D&D. It will be its own game. Their goal is to make is accessible to players of all editions, in such a way that playing 5e should still feel like playing your favorite edition of D&D.

Well I am just going to respectfully agree to disagree with you. Because it sure sounds that way to me. Even if they made a game that was similar to all previous editions but still not compatible. Then they would still have the problem of "edition wars" which is what they are trying to avoid.

They would still wind up with a game that renders all their previous edition's material useless. Thus creating yet another edition war.

As far as your comment of "We've already been told, in no uncertain terms, that 5e will not be rules-compatible with all previous editions of D&D." Well honestly I do not know where you get that. Maybe you are misinformed? I have followed Wizard's Legends and Lore column by Monte Cook for a long time and no where did I read were they said that. If you have seen otherwise then link it.

Your wish is my command.

WotC is banking on the idea that if you provide a game that allows everyone to play in the style that they prefer, no matter what edition of D&D they find most appealing, they'll choose to sit down at the same table together.


What's the point in spending all this money to buy a new edition of D&D to just play a version we already have? The reason people will buy 5th edition is because it's the newest incarnation to provide new materials to purchase. We may get some fancy new books, but like a video game, it's the same game just with better art/graphics.


SuperSlayer wrote:
What's the point in spending all this money to buy a new edition of D&D to just play a version we already have? The reason people will buy 5th edition is because it's the newest incarnation to provide new materials to purchase. We may get some fancy new books, but like a video game, it's the same game just with better art/graphics.

If it is directly compatible (Scott, I read that Twitter quote you posted for us, and I can see some uncertainty in your position), then the reason to buy 5E is that it will be compatible with all editions.

That means that whatever edition you prefer to play, you could use materials from the other editions. As it stands, I would never consider using 4E stuff in my 3.5 game because there are conversion issues. And I have a huge collection of 1E and 2E modules my current group has never played. It would be great to be able to trot that stuff out and surprise them with something new (at least, to the kids).

If it isn't directly compatible, but it gives you the feel of the game, then everybody at the table could, as Mearls and Cook have said, get the feel of whatever edition they prefer. Everybody could be happy with it.

Of course, all of this asumes a lot. The game has to be playable first.

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

Tarra wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


Then I'm afraid your reading of it is inaccurate. We've already been told, in no uncertain terms, that 5e will not be rules-compatible with all previous editions of D&D. It will be its own game. Their goal is to make is accessible to players of all editions, in such a way that playing 5e should still feel like playing your favorite edition of D&D.

Well I am just going to respectfully agree to disagree with you. Because it sure sounds that way to me. Even if they made a game that was similar to all previous editions but still not compatible. Then they would still have the problem of "edition wars" which is what they are trying to avoid.

They would still wind up with a game that renders all their previous edition's material useless. Thus creating yet another edition war.

As far as your comment of "We've already been told, in no uncertain terms, that 5e will not be rules-compatible with all previous editions of D&D." Well honestly I do not know where you get that. Maybe you are misinformed? I have followed Wizard's Legends and Lore column by Monte Cook for a long time and no where did I read were they said that. If you have seen otherwise then link it.

If you read the sentence right after your initial bolding you will see the refutation of assertion plain as day.

It reads "The goal here is to embrace all forms of the D&D experience and to not exclude anyone".

It DOESN'T read "The goal here is to make everything backwards compatible with all previous editions."

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
What's the point in spending all this money to buy a new edition of D&D to just play a version we already have? The reason people will buy 5th edition is because it's the newest incarnation to provide new materials to purchase. We may get some fancy new books, but like a video game, it's the same game just with better art/graphics.

If it is directly compatible (Scott, I read that Twitter quote you posted for us, and I can see some uncertainty in your position), then the reason to buy 5E is that it will be compatible with all editions.

That means that whatever edition you prefer to play, you could use materials from the other editions. As it stands, I would never consider using 4E stuff in my 3.5 game because there are conversion issues. And I have a huge collection of 1E and 2E modules my current group has never played. It would be great to be able to trot that stuff out and surprise them with something new (at least, to the kids).

If it isn't directly compatible, but it gives you the feel of the game, then everybody at the table could, as Mearls and Cook have said, get the feel of whatever edition they prefer. Everybody could be happy with it.

Of course, all of this asumes a lot. The game has to be playable first.

I still believe the goal is to provide the gaming experience one has with their preferred edition.

So the point would be to provide a gaming experience for differing tastes under one banner and at the same table.

And because a lot of us a straight-up game collectors anyway.


I have seen a lot of people all over in the internet talking with certainty about 5E being "compatible" (whatever exactly that means) with previous editions.

If WotC isn't going to do this, I think they would be well-advised to take a page from Scott's book and squash the rumor now. Violently. With a big hammer. Before it becomes the dominant narrative.


Chuck Wright wrote:
And because a lot of us a straight-up game collectors anyway.

My shelves groan with books for games I'll never play again.

Anybody remember Hahlmabrea?

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To the original topic - I can tell you that we at Frog God Games are watching what's happening with the new edition very, very closely. We've already started formulating some plans on how we will react depending on what information is unveiled over the coming year or so.

I'm also going to be involving myself in the open beta and actively providing feedback to WotC.

That said - Worst case scenario is that WotC pounds Pathfinder into the dust and Paizo fights back with a new system or revision on the current system.

Best case scenario is everyone wins and both companies thrive... just like the other gaming companies out there are thriving (Catalyst, Fantasy Flight, etc.).

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Chuck Wright wrote:
And because a lot of us a straight-up game collectors anyway.

My shelves groan with books for games I'll never play again.

Anybody remember Hahlmabrea?

Wow, no, I don't know that one.

I'm duly impressed.. I know most of them out there. I even have Aria and Everlasting.

Andoran

Chuck Wright wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Chuck Wright wrote:
And because a lot of us a straight-up game collectors anyway.

My shelves groan with books for games I'll never play again.

Anybody remember Hahlmabrea?

Wow, no, I don't know that one.

I'm duly impressed.. I know most of them out there. I even have Aria and Everlasting.

Hey, Aria! I'll give a shout out to Aria!!! Great game ... although I'm a bit biased since I worked with the company that put the game out and was involved a bit with the game itself ;)


oh... Hahlmabrea...That beat my Tribe 8, or Bughunter.... : /

But if WotC use the Saga (star wars) engine for 5e... now that be a blow... IMHO...
But I think M Monte will want to build a new system, so best of luck to them... I Gamemaster Pathfinder and use all of my old books ^_^

Peace I go


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Chuck Wright wrote:

That said - Worst case scenario is that WotC pounds Pathfinder into the dust and Paizo fights back with a new system or revision on the current system.

Best case scenario is everyone wins and both companies thrive... just like the other gaming companies out there are thriving (Catalyst, Fantasy Flight, etc.).

I'm rooting for your best case scenario, but I think a worst situation would be D&D flops and WoTC give up, pulling all product and publicity for the immediate future. Paizo's sales would probably improve in the short-term, but the long-term effect of that loss of visibility of the hobby in mainstream media and outlets wouldnt be a good thing.

Paizo can't yet match D&D's brand awareness or marketting budget with those outside the gaming hobby (D&D next has featured on what? CNN, Time, NYT...? Hopefully, that situation will change over the next few years, but I dont think Paizo would currently do well if the other Gorilla threw in the towel.

(All of that is only mildly informed speculation and opinion, of course).

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.

D&D went pretty low before (remember the 5 years before Third Edition) and a company came forward to fill the vacuum left behind - White Wolf.

Paizo is currently in the best position to fill that vacuum if the brand of D&D falls off the map for some time again.

D&D is the most recognizable game, but it isn't the only game. Nor does the hobby fail because D&D does. It's just harder without them.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Chuck Wright wrote:

D&D went pretty low before (remember the 5 years before Third Edition) and a company came forward to fill the vacuum left behind - White Wolf.

Paizo is currently in the best position to fill that vacuum if the brand of D&D falls off the map for some time again.

D&D is the most recognizable game, but it isn't the only game. Nor does the hobby fail because D&D does. It's just harder without them.

Yeah - that's my concern.

In the short term, I wouldnt be worried - we'll all just move on to buying what we want to buy. I'm not sure about bringing in new, non-gamers though.

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
SuperSlayer wrote:
Glad to hear that's not the title, there is only one title for D&D, it's just a matter of how they word it. Super advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition, Dungeons & Dragons etc...

"Super Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" Best new name I have heard yet!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarra wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


Then I'm afraid your reading of it is inaccurate. We've already been told, in no uncertain terms, that 5e will not be rules-compatible with all previous editions of D&D. It will be its own game. Their goal is to make is accessible to players of all editions, in such a way that playing 5e should still feel like playing your favorite edition of D&D.

Well I am just going to respectfully agree to disagree with you. Because it sure sounds that way to me. Even if they made a game that was similar to all previous editions but still not compatible. Then they would still have the problem of "edition wars" which is what they are trying to avoid.

There's the problem. Right there, bolded. "Sounds like" is a horribly slippery slope when dealing with a game that revolves around imaginary characters doing imaginary things; everyone's imagination is different.

A significant chunk of the "edition wars" erupted over loose misinformation, things that "sounds that way" pour fuel on the fire of. Really, how many false notions have the pro-4e crowd had to shoot down and disprove over the past 3 years? I know a lot of my false notions were disproven.

At this point, people need to leave things like "sounds like/that way" at the door. It only serves to spread rumors and false information. Speculate all you want, but when you have multiple quotes from the guys in charge saying otherwise, it's time to let it go, and if you're going to be taking notes, take note of actual solid facts confirmed, not would-shoulda-couldabeen's.


Hahlmabrea is a one-hit wonder (hit?) that came from a company called Sutton Hoo games.

The only way to describe it is a kinder, gentler D&D.

Orcs are like Vikings. Trolls - even the two-headed ones - have the souls of poets.

In order to adventure, you have to get a license from the ruling council. And if you don't bury the monsters you kill, the council will track you down and make you pay for it.

It has an interesting combat system, where your strength determines the dice you roll for damage with a specific weapon, instead of just adding to damage.

Paizo Employee CEO

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Hahlmabrea is a one-hit wonder (hit?) that came from a company called Sutton Hoo games.

The only way to describe it is a kinder, gentler D&D.

Orcs are like Vikings. Trolls - even the two-headed ones - have the souls of poets.

In order to adventure, you have to get a license from the ruling council. And if you don't bury the monsters you kill, the council will track you down and make you pay for it.

It has an interesting combat system, where your strength determines the dice you roll for damage with a specific weapon, instead of just adding to damage.

Bonus brownie points if anybody knows my connection to Hahlmabrea!

-Lisa

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
SuperSlayer wrote:
What's the point in spending all this money to buy a new edition of D&D to just play a version we already have? The reason people will buy 5th edition is because it's the newest incarnation to provide new materials to purchase. We may get some fancy new books, but like a video game, it's the same game just with better art/graphics.

I think the point was meant to be taken figuratively not literally, which in this case means nothing in particular was said at all.

As to the Paizo response, no doubt a long non-string of "no comment".

I don't see it as an issue for them. Paizo has built it's own brand loyalty which is becoming more independent of the D&D brand has time goes on. Back in the day, lots of people left AD&D for other company brands and never looked back. Pathfinder isn't really that different.

In other words, as long as they keep their client base happy, they really don't have to worry that much about what comes out of Seattle.


Are you responsible for the infamous Pigasus, Ms. Stevens?


Lisa Stevens wrote:

Bonus brownie points if anybody knows my connection to Hahlmabrea!

-Lisa

Dan Fox and you were both connected with Lion Rampant. Wasn't Hahlmabrea sort of Dan Fox's vanity press project via Lion Rampant? Is that the connection?

Gary "Reads Shannon Appelcline's column on rpg.net" McBride
Fire Mountain Games

Paizo Employee CEO

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fire Mountain Games wrote:
Lisa Stevens wrote:

Bonus brownie points if anybody knows my connection to Hahlmabrea!

-Lisa

Dan Fox and you were both connected with Lion Rampant. Wasn't Hahlmabrea sort of Dan Fox's vanity press project via Lion Rampant? Is that the connection?

Gary "Reads Shannon Appelcline's column on rpg.net" McBride
Fire Mountain Games

You are correct! Dan Fox was the investor who got Lion Rampant to move from Minnesota to Atlanta. Then, when the financing fell through, we ended up having to merge with White Wolf Magazine to survive, and thus was White Wolf founded. Dan ended up splitting with the company and forming Sutton Hoo to publish Hahlmabre. I believe Dan even thanks me in the credits of that book. :)

Brownie points to Gary for a) knowing this and b) reading Shannon's excellent articles!

-Lisa

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Lisa Stevens wrote:
Fire Mountain Games wrote:
Lisa Stevens wrote:

Bonus brownie points if anybody knows my connection to Hahlmabrea!

-Lisa

Dan Fox and you were both connected with Lion Rampant. Wasn't Hahlmabrea sort of Dan Fox's vanity press project via Lion Rampant? Is that the connection?

Gary "Reads Shannon Appelcline's column on rpg.net" McBride
Fire Mountain Games

You are correct! Dan Fox was the investor who got Lion Rampant to move from Minnesota to Atlanta. Then, when the financing fell through, we ended up having to merge with White Wolf Magazine to survive, and thus was White Wolf founded. Dan ended up splitting with the company and forming Sutton Hoo to publish Hahlmabre. I believe Dan even thanks me in the credits of that book. :)

Brownie points to Gary for a) knowing this and b) reading Shannon's excellent articles!

-Lisa

If I remember correctly your first appearance at Gen Con as part of Lion Rampant was when you sold those black books of Ars Magica and your stand wasn't much beyond an upturned cardboard box. :)

Shadow Lodge

Chuck Wright wrote:

To the original topic - I can tell you that we at Frog God Games are watching what's happening with the new edition very, very closely. We've already started formulating some plans on how we will react depending on what information is unveiled over the coming year or so.

I'm also going to be involving myself in the open beta and actively providing feedback to WotC.

That said - Worst case scenario is that WotC pounds Pathfinder into the dust and Paizo fights back with a new system or revision on the current system.

Best case scenario is everyone wins and both companies thrive... just like the other gaming companies out there are thriving (Catalyst, Fantasy Flight, etc.).

As long as you guys continue to support Swords and Wizardry, there's at least one fan who will follow you down the well...

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

I think that it's been made quite clear that you don't go down the well, Kthulhu. ;)

Also - since we own Swords & Wizardry then you're with us for the long haul!


Can I just point out that I love that Lisa posted twice in the "What does Paizo think of 5e" and didn't say a word about it, :p

Andoran

Or maybe they are just being quiet and classy abot thr whole thing. It's not like they have o pst something about it. Why would they at this point. The final product is months away and were just starting to hear about what maybe included in 5E. Let's try not to make a big thing out of nothing.


Wow, all that arguing a couple of weeks ago about compatibility between editions and not one peep after Monte's blog from the 6th. This is the first paragraph:

"Last week, I talked about why we might be interested in uniting the editions, and how we might look at the tones and play styles of those editions to capture what we seek to have in D&D. To be clear, we're not talking about creating a bridge so that you can play 1E and 4E at the same time. Instead, we're allowing you to play a 1E-style game or a 4E-style game with the same rules. Also, players at the table can choose the style of character they want to play. In short, let's talk about style and D&D."

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / DnD Next: Any reaction from the Paizo Staff? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©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.