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

Dear Paizo, please look into buying the D&D brand if possible


Paizo Publishing General Discussion

51 to 100 of 170 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Buying d&d would be a poor move, and frankly I hope 5e fails. Let me say it again...

I HOPE 5E FAILS! Something needs to change. A new edition, I mean new game, as wotc has to make it a whole new animal every time now, and 4e is still relatively new. All Hasbro cares is the bottom line. The formula is to produce as many sub quality books as they can feasibly sell, make a new edition, rinse, and repeat.

It will split the d&d community yet again, since many won't want to change. Once it fails to meet the expectations of Hasbro it'll be shelved. It will convince that company to get out of the game...

I am just getting into pathfinder. I've had the core for a long time, but all my friends played 4e. Well now we're truly fed up with Hasbro. I've been sick of the constant by our new edition mantra, their lack of inspiration, and and their rpg turned boardgame...

Paizo has done an excellent job, and gives superb quality are an affordable price. Kudos Paizo, I'm a late convert, but happy to join the table. :)

Grand Lodge

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

Whether Paizo has the money or not is not the problem, rather it is the size of the company and the size of the staff. They already have issues getting the Pathfinder books out on schedule, especially during the heavy convention time of the year.

If they were to buy the D&D brand, either it or PRPG would have to die. Where is a Thunderdome when you need one? ;)

BUST A DEAL, FACE THE WHEEL!

Paizo Employee PostMonster General

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's uncool to post things like "I hope 5e fails" on our messageboards. Please don't.


Gary Teter wrote:
I think it's uncool to post things like "I hope 5e fails" on our messageboards. Please don't.

I'm inclined to agree with this thought. Posting things of this nature is just fanning the long dead flames of the edition wars. No gamer should ever wish bad for another gaming company, whether we like their product or not. In the end, every ounce of competition in the market breeds better product.

I know, personally, as a GM, my playgroup faces Beholders, Githyanki and Illithid....I mean they are freely available to us Pathfinder players via the OGL, and the conversion efforts take all of about a minute, maybe two. You need them to be all pretty and look like Paizo released them as an official product? Learn to work your photoshop...plenty of artwork from the Reynolds days of D&D all over the net, and it's pretty easy to find the background page textures paizo uses for their books. And trust me, you learning how to use photoshop to satisfy the need to have a few token creatures in your game is a lot cheaper than Paizo investing a mass amount of money in a bloated dying company. And, the beauty of it is, as long as you never ask for a dime for it, or attempt to distribute it, you're not violating any form of OGL...its a fan conversion, for personal usage.

Paizo is doing fine, doing what they are doing. I myself was never a Krynn player, I thought it was way to "This is the story, and that's the way it is" for my taste. Ravenloft bored me to tears, Dark Sun was fun for a minute, then the novelty wore off, and the Forgotten Realms are unrecognizable. Golarian has the feel that the Realms had when it was still vibrant, and worth playing in.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

As a gamer the last thing I want to see is any game company fail. It lowers diversity and makes our community all the more poorer for it.

Besides, I want Paizo to have competition. I want hounds baying at their heels. I want them always looking over their shoulder as well as ahead.

Because that in the end gives us all better product, no matter which company we buy from.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
As for warlocks, if Paizo hasn't created a warlock class, it's because they've yet to see a warlock-shaped hole in their classes so far.

Actually... we came VERY close to calling the magus a warlock. We didn't because we knew a lot of folks out there were using the 3.5 warlock in their games and it's kind of a jerk move to confuse things and "overwrite" existing classes with entirely new concepts.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
As for warlocks, if Paizo hasn't created a warlock class, it's because they've yet to see a warlock-shaped hole in their classes so far.
Actually... we came VERY close to calling the magus a warlock. We didn't because we knew a lot of folks out there were using the 3.5 warlock in their games and it's kind of a jerk move to confuse things and "overwrite" existing classes with entirely new concepts.

Also, the forums would explode in "Warlocks are/aren't male Witches" threads, and we all know that's a hot topic among 30+ male geeks...

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Should have called up Gabe and Tycho for permission to call them Witchaloks.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Should have called up Gabe and Tycho for permission to call them Witchaloks.

I'm still partial to Stabacabara ;-)

Cheliax

Arnwyn wrote:
Worth it just to get illithids and beholders.

Not really at all, I wouldn't spend 1 penny for them. You can already use them in your homegames, just not officially so I don't see a problem. Paizo can come up with much better monsters as well as the people in the forums.

IF Paizo wanted to get more customers, I would start another world setting, probably Steampunk/Fantasy type, were you could use already all published material (Bestiary, Players, Archetypes, Gear, etc...) and just add the fluff and equipment proper for that setting (Sounds easy right! To bad it's not).

It is easier to just create another setting, when they come close to finishing the current one (there are plenty of unknown places still in Golarion).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Arnwyn wrote:
Worth it just to get illithids and beholders.

There were Illithids (called "Mind Flares") in Final Fantasy Tactics, and I rather doubt Squaresoft paid anyone for the privilege...given that Illithids are themselves a thinly-veiled Lovecraft reference, there's nothing stopping anyone from putting squid-headed monsters in their fantasy games.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
spectrevk wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
Worth it just to get illithids and beholders.
There were Illithids (called "Mind Flares") in Final Fantasy Tactics, and I rather doubt Squaresoft paid anyone for the privilege...given that Illithids are themselves a thinly-veiled Lovecraft reference, there's nothing stopping anyone from putting squid-headed monsters in their fantasy games.

Nothing stops WotC from suing somebody for that. And in US, a lawsuit can kill you before it even reaches the courtroom (proceeding costs ahoy).

Cheliax

Well James Jacobs created a variant of a mind flayer a long time ago, and I had the disgusting pleasure to fight it as a player.

I don't remember the name Illithid being used until like 3.5 maybe?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
spectrevk wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
Worth it just to get illithids and beholders.
There were Illithids (called "Mind Flares") in Final Fantasy Tactics, and I rather doubt Squaresoft paid anyone for the privilege...given that Illithids are themselves a thinly-veiled Lovecraft reference, there's nothing stopping anyone from putting squid-headed monsters in their fantasy games.
Nothing stops WotC from suing somebody for that. And in US, a lawsuit can kill you before it even reaches the courtroom (proceeding costs ahoy).

Final Fantasy Tactics was hardly an obscure game, though I believe it came out before Hasbro had the license, the re-issue for the PSP certainly did not. Seems odd that they weren't sued.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
spectrevk wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
spectrevk wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
Worth it just to get illithids and beholders.
There were Illithids (called "Mind Flares") in Final Fantasy Tactics, and I rather doubt Squaresoft paid anyone for the privilege...given that Illithids are themselves a thinly-veiled Lovecraft reference, there's nothing stopping anyone from putting squid-headed monsters in their fantasy games.
Nothing stops WotC from suing somebody for that. And in US, a lawsuit can kill you before it even reaches the courtroom (proceeding costs ahoy).
Final Fantasy Tactics was hardly an obscure game, though I believe it came out before Hasbro had the license, the re-issue for the PSP certainly did not. Seems odd that they weren't sued.

The lawsuit would be a problematic case to prove given that they're not using the name and Sony isn't making a paper and dice roleplaying game.

There is a limit on how much you can copyright an idea. Expressions of ideas are another story. WOTC has the lock on the expression of the mindflayer as written up paper and dice material as well as any other expression which would be a derivative of the D&D IP property.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
LazarX wrote:


The lawsuit would be a problematic case to prove given that they're not using the name and Sony isn't making a paper and dice roleplaying game.

There is a limit on how much you can copyright an idea. Expressions of ideas are another story. WOTC has the lock on the expression of the mindflayer as written up paper and dice material as well as any other expression which would be a derivative of the D&D IP property.

That makes sense. There are minor adjustments that could be made to include an Illithid-like race; I always figured Paizo abstained mostly because there aren't any psionics rules in the core books.


Look, I think if wotc was concerned about more then the bottom line, and stuck with a version of the game and improved upon it I would wish them well. I have stated on their pages that I hope they learn by paizos example. Pointing out where paizo excels at in pathfinder. You know what kind of response I got? "You're a 3e hold out, etc " The thing that irritates me is that what ever they make can be great, if they actually cared for more than sales. Rpgs are a niche market, and in many ways wotc and Hasbro damage the market. If you spam it with crap or change the game every couple years you lose customer faith. I mean look at 4e, it wasn't even 3 yes before essentials and its only its 4th year and 5th is in its way. An all new version to play that can't use all those books you bought. The shift to 4th was bad enough, and that is why pathfinder was able to really shine since it kept an 8 year old game going and now its in its 12 year albeit in a new shiny cover with many improvements, its still the same game.

I seriously hope they either learn from paizo or fail with their bad practices and let someone new take over that will care. If a business does a crappy job it should fail, just saying...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

While I think that on some level it would be fun to see what the Paizo folks would do with D&D, I very much would like Pathfinder and D&D to remain separate. As it stands Paizo have done an excellent job building up the Pathfinder brand and it's going from strength to strength. I think that Golarion is great and they put out a lot of great product.

At the same time I enjoy 4E as well, it's a fun system and the game of choice for a number of my friends. I spend more on Pathfinder, but 4E gives me some options for another fun and well supported system and I expect that 5E will do the same when it comes out. It'll certainly be interesting to check it out when it arrives and it'll be fun to see Paizo respond to the move from the other big player.

Taking WotC out of the picture just removes another big player from the industry and I wouldn't want that at all.


It doesn't really make sense for Paizo to buy the D&D brand even if it were available.

Do I think it would be cool for Pathfinder to become D&D legally? Sure. I think it would be neat if the next printing was the D&D Pathfinder Core Rulebook. (Even if Paizo had the D&D brand, they shouldn't drop the Pathfinder brand but instead merge it. Pathfinder would be the game edition name.)

But I don't think buying D&D would be a good idea for Paizo. Why? D&D has too much material people would want supported. I like Golarion and Golarion is good for Paizo and good for Pathfinder. But if Paizo owned D&D then people would want to see Ravenloft, Greyhawk, and Forgotten Realms again, just to name what I consider the big three settings. If Paizo owned D&D, they'd be under pressure to publish for those settings, as well as others. Now as far as I'm concerned, I can do all my Ravenloft gaming prettymuch in Ustalav in Golarion. If I do need to go into another plane for something Ravenloft-related, such as planar-locked demons, Golarion has made use of pocket planes plenty of times in its APs already and the planar elements of Ravenloft could come to bear that way, rather than needing a separate Ravenloft product line. I love Forgotten Realms (pre-Spellplague), but Golarion fills that fantasy niche pretty solidly for me, and I don't need Paizo trying to supply both demands in separate product lines. I have little interest in Greyhawk (missed that bandwagon), but the same thing said for Forgotten Realms goes double for Greyhawk--Golarion already fills that fantasy market.

Lisa Stevens has said before that one of the things TSR did wrong was publish too many campaign settings, thus dividing their market. Paizo publishes one campaign setting, Golarion, and that means everything they publish can be used in their setting. It's not like people are buying Ravenloft monster books then can't use them with Forgotten Realms settings books because the monsters aren't appropriate for Forgotten Realms, so the people then don't buy either the Ravenloft product line or the Forgotten Realms product line because they're not "compatible" with each other. (Even though really it's the DM's call what goes in what setting and it's all basically compatible.)

As it is right now, I buy stuff for 2e Ravenloft (from the American Eagles sale) with intentions of using it for inspiration or adaptation to use in Ustalav. (Ustalav's tagline in the Inner Sea World Guide is "Fog-shrouded land of gothic horror." Sound familiar?) Ustalav is even broken into counties with their own flavors and seats of power that serve as simple analogues for the different countries of Ravenloft. So do I think Paizo needs to publish Ravenloft with the D&D brand? Not at all, they've already filled that niche with Ustalav.

I'd rather have Paizo get permission from the owners of the coeurl to include it in their Bestiaries and materials than have Paizo get the displacer beast. Beholders are just silly, so the only thing I'm really missing from WotC are mind flayers and neogi, which I can include in my home games if I want them.

While they're seeking permission to re-use the coeurl in their Bestiaries (still non-OGL, of course), Paizo should also seek permission from Penny Arcade to republish the deep crow in their bestiaries non-OGL too. Both of those are very cool monsters. (I'm also hoping the rukh shows up Pathfinderized soon too, but it was OGL so less relevant.)

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

0gre wrote:
What could Paizo do with the millions of dollars it would cost to acquire the D&D branding?

Didn't Lisa Stevens make some comment about buying a Private Island?


Deiros wrote:

Well James Jacobs created a variant of a mind flayer a long time ago, and I had the disgusting pleasure to fight it as a player.

I don't remember the name Illithid being used until like 3.5 maybe?

The name "illithid" goes back at least to the D1: Descent into the Depths of the Earth, but not as far back as the 1e Monster Manual.


Now see that is money well spent.

She could rename it Mediogalti.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
spectrevk wrote:
That makes sense. There are minor adjustments that could be made to include an Illithid-like race; I always figured Paizo abstained mostly because there aren't any psionics rules in the core books.

We put intellect devourers and neothelids into our core Bestiary, two monsters from the Psionics Handbook SRD.

We didn't do the same with illithids because they are a specific monster that WotC wishes to retain the intellectual property of, and we want to respect that.

And if we didn't... let's just say that Wizards is paying a lot more attention to Paizo right now than TSR/WotC was paying to Square back in the day when Final Fantasy Tactics came out.


My kids have a Scooby Doo DVD. In it there is a haunted writer being plagued by his creation, a squid headed humanoid with a cone shaped sonic/psionic attack.

This is iffy in IP territory. Illithids are iconic copies of a literary horror. Like most of the early monster manual. Paizo could wage this fight, but why? The early history of RPGs is riddled with stories of litigious companies fighting over derivative material. It was all a huge waste of resources.

The Denizens of Leng have the potential to be so much cooler than the mind flayers. I'd actually rather see that. I already own Lords of Madness, not to mention a ton of Planescape stuff and some illithid-centric adventures.

The Illithids are a cool race, with a fair bit of silliness dashed in over the years. That they are so intrinsically linked to the 2 Gith races is the real deal in my book. But that style of story takes place OFF Golarian. It's not time for that.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:

We put intellect devourers and neothelids into our core Bestiary, two monsters from the Psionics Handbook SRD.

We didn't do the same with illithids because they are a specific monster that WotC wishes to retain the intellectual property of, and we want to respect that.

And if we didn't... let's just say that Wizards is paying a lot more attention to Paizo right now than TSR/WotC was paying to Square back in the day when Final Fantasy Tactics came out.

+1 to that.

I admit before 5E was announced I was hoping that Paizo could buy D&D IP, because it hurts me to see such a wonderful product that is D&D treated as a commodity to be squeezed of every last drop of money it could make.

Pathfinder, as with D&D before it, is a labor of love and it's sad to see it D&D in the hands of people who don't really love it. That's why Paizo playtests all their new material so that it doesn't hurt the integrity of the system and WotC dump out as many products as they can barf up, regardless of the quality.

Really Illithids and Beholders are very niche monsters and most players I know roll their eyes at the cheese of pulling them out. I wish WotC the best of luck with 5E or D&DNext or whatever. I'm sticking with Paizo.


Wolf Munroe wrote:
As it is right now, I buy stuff for 2e Ravenloft (from the American Eagles sale) with intentions of using it for inspiration or adaptation to use in Ustalav. (Ustalav's tagline in the Inner Sea World Guide is "Fog-shrouded land of gothic horror." Sound familiar?) Ustalav is even broken into counties with their own flavors and seats of power that serve as simple analogues for the different countries of Ravenloft. So do I think Paizo needs to publish Ravenloft with the D&D brand? Not at all, they've already filled that niche with Ustalav.

Do you have White Wolf's Ravenloft books for 3rd edition? If not, give them a try - IMO they are best thing that happened to Ravenloft - WotC terminating license to produce much worser Return To Castle Ravenloft was an insult to the customers.


I wish 5e all the best, but I won't be looking into it. I just don't have the inclination to do so.

/ my wife still tells people that I play Dungeons & Dragons on the weekends. Heck, I interchange Pathfinder and D&D all the time. Old habits I guess.

Shadow Lodge

Lord Fyre wrote:
0gre wrote:
What could Paizo do with the millions of dollars it would cost to acquire the D&D branding?
Didn't Lisa Stevens make some comment about buying a Private Island?

I was thinking more in terms of their massive Star Wars memorabilia collection.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Berik wrote:

While I think that on some level it would be fun to see what the Paizo folks would do with D&D, I very much would like Pathfinder and D&D to remain separate. As it stands Paizo have done an excellent job building up the Pathfinder brand and it's going from strength to strength. I think that Golarion is great and they put out a lot of great product.

At the same time I enjoy 4E as well, it's a fun system and the game of choice for a number of my friends. I spend more on Pathfinder, but 4E gives me some options for another fun and well supported system and I expect that 5E will do the same when it comes out. It'll certainly be interesting to check it out when it arrives and it'll be fun to see Paizo respond to the move from the other big player.

Taking WotC out of the picture just removes another big player from the industry and I wouldn't want that at all.

Yeah, me neither. I like both companies' products and am really crossing my fingers that, with D&D:Next, people will begin to see WoTC as just another company like Fantasy Flight Games and so forth.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
j b 200 wrote:
Pathfinder, as with D&D before it, is a labor of love and it's sad to see it D&D in the hands of people who don't really love it.

It's probably best not to make a habit of passing judgment on how much a group of obviously passionate people love the thing that they're passionate about. If you think the guys working on D&D don't love D&D, you're about as mistaken as humanly possible.


Even if I wanted Hasbro as a company to fail because they're more concerned about what goes into their banks than the quality that they put out, I don't think I would want to 5E to fail. The concept of uniting generations of gamers is glorious albeit lofty goal.


Drejk wrote:
Wolf Munroe wrote:
As it is right now, I buy stuff for 2e Ravenloft (from the American Eagles sale) with intentions of using it for inspiration or adaptation to use in Ustalav. (Ustalav's tagline in the Inner Sea World Guide is "Fog-shrouded land of gothic horror." Sound familiar?) Ustalav is even broken into counties with their own flavors and seats of power that serve as simple analogues for the different countries of Ravenloft. So do I think Paizo needs to publish Ravenloft with the D&D brand? Not at all, they've already filled that niche with Ustalav.
Do you have White Wolf's Ravenloft books for 3rd edition? If not, give them a try - IMO they are best thing that happened to Ravenloft - WotC terminating license to produce much worser Return To Castle Ravenloft was an insult to the customers.

I have them, yep. Not all the supplementary books, but I have the hardbacks anyway:

Ravenloft Player's Handbook (3.5e campaign setting), Ravenloft Dungeon Master's Guide, Ravenloft Denizens of Dread (3.5e monster book) and Ravenloft: Masque of the Red Death (a Ravenloft campaign setting for 19th century Earth). I also have Heroes of Light and Champions of Darkness, the two books of NPCs they put-out in softback. If I ever run across Van Richten's Guide to the Walking Dead, I'd like to pick that up.

I'd still like to run a Masque of the Red Death game some time--I'd open that campaign with the GameMastery module Hangman's Noose set in London instead of Absalom, and run it as a ghost-centric campaign involving primarily ghosts and human villains, and possibly some demon worship, but definitely using the Masque of the Red Death concept of Lairs, which work like Ravenloft Sinkholes of Evil combined with elements of Ravenloft domains.

But as far as running anything in a fantasy setting instead of a period piece, Ustalav works as the fog-shrouded land of gothic horror for me.

I also have and like Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, the one WotC put out after they yanked the license back from Swords and Sorcery/White Wolf. There are things I've heard they changed for the worse from the original adventure, but I haven't read it. I really like the plague zombies in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft though and use similar Apocalypse zombies (as they appear in Pathfinder) in my own campaign plans. I also use Expedition to Castle Ravenloft as inspiration for variety in my own adventures. I've thumbed through it enough that there are prints in the margins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Number One reason Paizo should try to gets rights to D&D name brand...

so they can publish the Age of Worms Hardcover !!!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
j b 200 wrote:
Pathfinder, as with D&D before it, is a labor of love and it's sad to see it D&D in the hands of people who don't really love it.
It's probably best not to make a habit of passing judgment on how much a group of obviously passionate people love the thing that they're passionate about. If you think the guys working on D&D don't love D&D, you're about as mistaken as humanly possible.

What I mean are the people who are making decisions about the brand that are not in the best interest of the brand or the system or the product, but what is in the best interest of the bottom line and that means producing as much product as you can, without concern for quality.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
j b 200 wrote:
j b 200 wrote:
Pathfinder, as with D&D before it, is a labor of love and it's sad to see it D&D in the hands of people who don't really love it.
What I mean are the people who are making decisions about the brand that are not in the best interest of the brand or the system or the product, but what is in the best interest of the bottom line and that means producing as much product as you can, without concern for quality.

How do you reconcile that perception with their current reduced output whilst undertaking a protracted part open, part closed playtest?


I think that Paizo knows how best to spend their money. Pathfinder has done well enough that they took on the biggest and baddest of the RPGs and made them at least flinch. No one has done that before. Sure, it was with their own rules for the most part, but it worked.

5E will not be able to accomplish the overall goal and in that regard it will fail. However that doesn't mean that it won't be a great system. I will buy it and check it out. Who knows, maybe I will run a Pathfinder and a DnD 5E game. I've run multiple systems before even within the same genre. I can do it again.

Buying the DnD brand would have very little payoff in the long run. Gaining access to a few monsters and a bunch of things that people didn't really want in the first place that would have to all be converted anyway just doesn't make sense. What's the number one complaint about 3.5? Glut. Why would Paizo want 8 years of instant glut? Why would Paizo want to either convert all that stuff instead of producing original content? Why would I want to buy any of that again? I can do the conversions for the products that I want. I don't want to buy it again just so that it is PRD-compatible. I don't think I'm alone with that.

Osirion

Geistlinger wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Ringtail wrote:
What beverage does that make F.A.T.A.L.?
If you take F.A.T.A.L. as the trolling attempt it probably was, it's actually pretty amusing, albeight in a rather disturbing manner. So, powdered iced tea.

I don't think it was a trolling attempt seeing as how the author touted it as the best game ever.

FATAL Review Rebuttal

I actually found and downloaded a copy of F.A.T.A.L.

I'll never print it (It's like...900 pages, and still not complete enough to be playable), but every couple of years my group will bring it up and pick a random page, quote the lunacy and laugh until we can't breathe.

'Elves fart 1D10 times per day...'

I mean...Good Gawds.

-Uriel


j b 200 wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
j b 200 wrote:
Pathfinder, as with D&D before it, is a labor of love and it's sad to see it D&D in the hands of people who don't really love it.
It's probably best not to make a habit of passing judgment on how much a group of obviously passionate people love the thing that they're passionate about. If you think the guys working on D&D don't love D&D, you're about as mistaken as humanly possible.
What I mean are the people who are making decisions about the brand that are not in the best interest of the brand or the system or the product, but what is in the best interest of the bottom line and that means producing as much product as you can, without concern for quality.

I think that you have a pretty inaccurate view of how the D&D brand is currently being handled. Hell, Paizo has been putting out way more material than WotC over the last year. WotC's material has been generally well-received by 4e fans, especially in the last two years.

Now, it's possible that you, personally, think that the material WotC produces is of low quality. I gather by your posts on the topic, however, that you don't like 4e very much. Given that 4e fans tend to like what WotC publishes and given that people who hate 4e tend not to like what WotC publishes, I think it's much more likely that what you call a lack of "concern for quality" is instead just a reflection of the fact that they're making things for a game you don't like, and that said products are of at least passable quality.

Wouldn't you say that's more accurate?


My own comment was on the fact that Hasbro keeps reigns on IP to sue people who make something identical or similar to their own despite the IP originally being ripped off from another source...


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
My own comment was on the fact that Hasbro keeps reigns on IP to sue people who make something identical or similar to their own despite the IP originally being ripped off from another source...

Which is their prerogative, especially if they've invested their own creative energy in further defining and expanding upon the original incarnations.

Osirion

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I must admit that I don't have the love affair with D&D that many folks here seem to. I am a 'That's finished, now I am going to move along' sort of guy. Other than a bit of nostalgia for a half-dozen monsters (Umber Hulks,Beholders,Githyanki/Githzerei/Mind Flayers,maybe one more...the Cooshee elven dog, I suppose), I really see no reason to even look back to D&D.Well, one...but Greyhawk is long dead at this point.

Golarion is vibrant and fresh. Original and just blossoming. Why would Paizo want to plunk down a sizable amount of cash to, what...republish FR? Boring...
I understand where the folks who want this are coming from, their love of D&D, but it isn't going to happen.
Mom and Dad aren't going to get back together... Enjoy both of your fave RPGs: they don't have to get remarried.

-Uriel


Scott Betts wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
My own comment was on the fact that Hasbro keeps reigns on IP to sue people who make something identical or similar to their own despite the IP originally being ripped off from another source...
Which is their prerogative, especially if they've invested their own creative energy in further defining and expanding upon the original incarnations.

So it's cool if I create an anthropomorphic rodent with green overalls and white gloves, call him Ricky the Rat, plop him in an RPG with stats and everything and then claim it as my own IP?


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
My own comment was on the fact that Hasbro keeps reigns on IP to sue people who make something identical or similar to their own despite the IP originally being ripped off from another source...
Which is their prerogative, especially if they've invested their own creative energy in further defining and expanding upon the original incarnations.
So it's cool if I create an anthropomorphic rodent with green overalls and white gloves, call him Ricky the Rat, plop him in an RPG with stats and everything and then claim it as my own IP?

This is a really loaded question. I'm assuming that you're trying to draw some Mickey Mouse threads of similarity, here. Copyright is a beast with a poorly-defined form. What you've just proposed, however, is something that someone could probably get away with (bearing in mind that this is in no way actual legal advice, yadda yadda); it strikes me as drawing inspiration from, but not similar enough as to infringe. It only becomes an issue when a copyright holder believes that one of their copyrights is being infringed upon in some way, and then it's a matter of pursuing avenues of legal action (whether resolved in or out of court).

Now, what you might be asking is: Is it morally conscionable to draw from an original work as inspiration and then build on that work in a way that makes the resultant creative work uniquely your own, and then to claim copyright of that resultant work?

My personal answer is something along the lines of, "Yes, usually."


Scott Betts wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
My own comment was on the fact that Hasbro keeps reigns on IP to sue people who make something identical or similar to their own despite the IP originally being ripped off from another source...
Which is their prerogative, especially if they've invested their own creative energy in further defining and expanding upon the original incarnations.

I fail to see how this is ok at all. To me it just proves again the deep problems with copyright as it currently exists, especially the cavalier attitude people have about eroding the public domain.

The specific example being taking Lovecraft's psyonic squid-people (Star-spawn of Cthulhu) and making them into product identity Mind Flayers, which is directly a theft from the public domain. Contrast this with all the Lovecraftian monsters in Pathfinder, which remain OGL.


Saint Caleth wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
My own comment was on the fact that Hasbro keeps reigns on IP to sue people who make something identical or similar to their own despite the IP originally being ripped off from another source...
Which is their prerogative, especially if they've invested their own creative energy in further defining and expanding upon the original incarnations.

I fail to see how this is ok at all. To me it just proves again the deep problems with copyright as it currently exists, especially the cavalier attitude people have about eroding the public domain.

The specific example being taking Lovecraft's psyonic squid-people (Star-spawn of Cthulhu) and making them into product identity Mind Flayers, which is directly a theft from the public domain. Contrast this with all the Lovecraftian monsters in Pathfinder, which remain OGL.

What you are talking about is an example of the separation in consideration of ideas versus expression. One might easily hold that the idea of psionic squid-people is broad enough and undefined enough so as to be immune to copyright, while the specific Lovecraftian expression of psionic squid-people (Cthulhu/cultists/deep ones/whatever) is defined and specific enough to be protected by copyright.


If Paizo bought D&D, I highly doubt I'd buy any of it. I've been pretty unimpressed with everything that's come out since the APG.

I hope 5e is successful enough that Paizo feels compelled to at least provide conversion guides for the APs. (though if the system is easy enough to use, I wouldn't even need them)

If 5e doesn't take the market back from Paizo, I think I'll either write my own 'Fantasy D20', or quit gaming.


Scott Betts wrote:
What you are talking about is an example of the separation in consideration of ideas versus expression. One might easily hold that the idea of psionic squid-people is broad enough and undefined enough so as to be immune to copyright, while the specific Lovecraftian expression of psionic squid-people (Cthulhu/cultists/deep ones/whatever) is defined and specific enough to be protected by copyright.

Ok, fair enough, I should have probably framed that comment in terms of ideas v. expression. It does not change my sentiment, especially in this day and age when trigger happy IP lawyers sue people for things that represent similar ideas, not similar expressions. Hasbro is a pretty big offender in this regard, but then I'm pretty sure that people know that Hasbro is Pure Evil in many respects.


So I've just bowed out of a flame war over Pathfinders success on the 5e site about what wotc could learn from paizo. Seriously, can't say anything positive about a rival over there. The designers have hefty goal to meet, but if anyone can help them out its Monte Cooke.

As people being happy with 4e, its a mixed bag, some don't care for the essentials stuff, some love it and others live in denial that something significant changed in the market to usher in the new edition. Its hard to believe but 4e just turned 4, and its on its way to being shelved. That will make it the shortest lived primary product game by a major company I can think of.

Any way, I gave best wishes to the designers though I don't think I want that band wagon again. Though to be honest I'd love to see d&d in private hands again, I Hasbro was the worst thing for them.

Paizo doesn't need d&d, they've made a name for themselves and its catchy. Their product has made me want to play again, 4e just Idk, I like it but it just doesn't feel like role-playing. So kudos, I'm a late but happy convert or is that a return since I played 3.x for the length of its life?

Shadow Lodge

Uriel393 wrote:

I actually found and downloaded a copy of F.A.T.A.L.

I'll never print it (It's like...900 pages, and still not complete enough to be playable)

I'd say it's the opposite. It's TOO complete to be playable. It's like everything I hate about 3.X magnified a thousandfold. Your character sheet comes complete with a Excel sheet and a slide rule.

Uriel393 wrote:
...but every couple of years my group will bring it up and pick a random page, quote the lunacy and laugh until we can't breathe.

Best possible use of the product.

Shadow Lodge

Saint Caleth wrote:
The specific example being taking Lovecraft's psyonic squid-people (Star-spawn of Cthulhu) and making them into product identity Mind Flayers, which is directly a theft from the public domain. Contrast this with all the Lovecraftian monsters in Pathfinder, which remain OGL.

The thing is, apart from the rough physical appearance, there's not much linking illithid and Star-Spawn.

51 to 100 of 170 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / General Discussion / Dear Paizo, please look into buying the D&D brand if possible All Messageboards

©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.