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

101 to 150 of 170 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps Subscriber
Uriel393 wrote:
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

I actually did print out a copy of it*. The hard copy is over at my brother's place, probably giving his RPGs STDs.

*:
As I have stated previously, I am probably a masochist when it comes to F.A.T.A.L.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Netherek wrote:

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.

[...]
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 think you might be using double standards here, you bring up Essentials in relation to 4e (when Essentials is not a new edition, its just 4e repackaged with errata included - i.e. a player with the PHB can play alongside a player with the Essentials books) but consider 3.0, 3.5 and Pathfinder all the same game (when I see them as different editions as each supercedes the other).

Assuming Wikipedia is correct on dates...

D&D 3.0 released in August 2000
D&D 3.5 released in July 2003
D&D 4e released in June 2008
Pathfinder released in August 2009
D&D 4e Essentials released in September 2010

So 4e is indeed in its 4th year, but will continue to be supported for a while yet and will make it to 5 years I guess, a similar length as D&D 3.5.

Pathfinder IMHO did not keep an 8 year old game going, 3.5 was 6 years old when the final PF core book came out, and it had already been out of print a year (so effectively PF was going to try to keep an edition that had had a 5 year lifespan going).

For me Pathfinder is another edition, albeit one that is less radical than D&D 4e, as the core rulebook supercedes 3.5 core rulebooks and quite a bit of PF material is not able to be used in a 3.5 game without some amount of conversion.

I guess the key question is whether Pathfinder will get a 2nd edition around 2014; if it does then it will have had an edition cycle with a similar duration to both 3.5 and 4e. My guess is that Paizo will likely take a bit longer than that, but it wouldn't surprise me if PF 2e came out around 2016.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber

While it has alread ybeen discussed just how much sense it would make for Paizo to buy the D&D brand, everything I hear about 5e suggests that it will certainly not a Pathfinder (aka D&D 3.5) clone at all.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Personally I can see Pros and Cons to Paizo acquiring the D&D IP.

Pros
Paizo would likely release D&D in PDF format again and at a reasonable price - definately a good thing!

Paizo seem to keep errata to a minimum (though the I hate how they treat errata as FAQ until it actually makes it into a printed book)

Paizo know how to run a living campaign well, realising that people will pay for scenarios and thus allowing them to pay for half decent content.

Cons
It could well bankrupt Paizo to obtain the D&D brand and IP.

Paizo would likely not want to support all the D&D settings and instead continue to focus on Golarion. As someone whose favourite setting is Eberron, who has just also got into Dark Sun and who finds Golarion at best a mediocre setting, this would likely kill interest in D&D for me.

Paizo would probably either just repackage the Pathfinder rules (in which case I would have the same issues with it that I do with the PF rules) or would tweak the rules a bit like they did for 3.5 > PF which would mean needing to buy new books to continue to play in PFS organised play (this would likely rule me out of PFS).

I doubt that Paizo would take the opportunity of gaining the D&D brand to build a new edition that was more innovative than PF was and that didn't have to maintain some semblance of backwards compatibility to PF. 4e had a lot of clever and cool stuff in it that I would want to see retained in the next edition of D&D in one form or other (even if only as optional rules) but I can't see that Paizo would do that.

WotC seem to want D&D Next to evolve the D&D game whilst also incorporating the best of each edition - they don't seem afraid to make it incompatible with 4e which gives them the freedom they need to have a chance to pull this off. Basially WotC seem bolder in their thinking and have the balls to try new stuff, whereas Paizo seem more conservative in their approach (understandable).


Malach the Merciless wrote:
And in all honestly what is stopping you as a DM introducing Mindflayers, et al to your home campaign?

"In all honesty", nothing (and I still play 3.5, too).

Obviously, though, I would like them as villains in purchased adventures. (Ignoring, of course, that I am well aware that this will never happen.)

Deiros wrote:
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.

Meh. No.

But, it's important to remember my post was mostly joking.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Arnwyn wrote:
Malach the Merciless wrote:
And in all honestly what is stopping you as a DM introducing Mindflayers, et al to your home campaign?

"In all honesty", nothing (and I still play 3.5, too).

Obviously, though, I would like them as villains in purchased adventures. (Ignoring, of course, that I am well aware that this will never happen.)

Paradigm Press had a very brief license to publish a Mind Flayers supplement. You might be able to get a copy at RPGNow.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DigitalMage wrote:


WotC seem to want D&D Next to evolve the D&D game whilst also incorporating the best of each edition - they don't seem afraid to make it incompatible with 4e which gives them the freedom they need to have a chance to pull this off. Basially WotC seem bolder in their thinking and have the balls to try new stuff, whereas Paizo seem more conservative in their approach (understandable).

I think that's the bed they made for themselves with 4e's approach. They can't just take and modestly evolve 4e like TSR did from 1e to 2e. That's unlikely to attract the older edition and PF gamers back. By a similar token, they can't take an earlier edition and evolve it a bit because they won't attract the 4e crowd. Both of those options are pretty much off the table given their stated goals. They've got to roll the dice on changes much bigger than either would be because they rolled the dice with 4e and got mixed results.

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

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.

An rpg publisher using the OGL and making use of illithids is in breach of the license, and it would be a breach even if illithids were 100% public domain. Once you use the license, you agree to its terms and conditions. If one of those terms is "don't use illithids" or "don't use the word dragon in the name of your game" and you do such a thing, you are in breach of the license even if neither action would infringe on any copyright or IP of WotC.

Proving a breach of a license is significantly easier than demonstrating copyright infringement. FFT did not use and does not use the OGL, so even if WotC did care, it would be more difficult to bring a case to enforce their rights.


So before we get into this too far, I'm not going to argue about what edition is best or how much change does have to be to be considered a different game.

You missed my point about essentials. It is different, the classes do not follow the 4e framework that was established within the players handbook, and yes while it did maintian the same rules with an update. The changes to 3.5 were a bit more heavy, but still able to use much of the books, though monster manuals were largely out. And you still can use 3.5 for pathfinder, though some things have to adjust.

For the change to 4e it was an entirely different game. And while I am not disagreeing that by the time 4e was out 3 was out of print. Being out of print does not matter much unless you still want to say essentials is the same as pre essentials. If that's the case why end your print run of all pre-e stuff. There is about as much change in the typeset that 3.5 had if don't have the errata. Its the rules and design going forward from this point on. The same could be said about 3.0 to 3.5 etc

So my point is that 4e is the shortest lived version, not talking about updates etc. The people who carried on with pathfinder are 3e players, which is the basis of my point. The company (Hasbro) is on their way making their third version of d&d in just over a decade. I have a feeling that they will have a similar response that 4e had. Some will not make the change, as they feel its the best darned thing since the invention of beer and don't even mention anything good about that old grognard predecessor. Just saying.

The only thing I see going for 5e is the semi open playtest. And maybe hiring Monte Cooke, as they want the 3e holdouts (largest group of holdouts) and he was one of the main designers of 3e era.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Netherek wrote:
You missed my point about essentials. It is different, the classes do not follow the 4e framework that was established within the players handbook, and yes while it did maintian the same rules with an update. The changes to 3.5 were a bit more heavy, but still able to use much of the books, though monster manuals were largely out. And you still can use 3.5 for pathfinder, though some things have to adjust.

Apologies for being a little thick but I am still not quite getting your point about Essentials. Are you suggesting that Essentials was a bigger change from 4e as Pathfinder was from 3.5? If so I disagree completely, I could GM a 4e game and have one player play a race and class from the original PHB and one player play a race and class from Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms and be completely comfortable about it.

However I wouldn't be at all comfortable running a game of 3.x where one player plays a race and class from the 3.5 PHB and one plays a race and class from the PF core rulebook - skills wouldn't match up, one player would get extra Skill or Hit Points due to favoured class, one would get extra feats etc.

Netherek wrote:
So my point is that 4e is the shortest lived version, not talking about updates etc.

I guess it depends on your point of view. If you are interested in "do I have to buy new books to play the game?" / "Do I need to upgrade?" then 3.0 actually had the shorted lifespan with 3.5 and 4e likely to end up being about the same at 5 years.


No I don't think essentials was a bigger change, they did a pretty decent job of it. It was a change though, and they stopped printing there pre-e books. The issues are minor in the great scheme of things but it changed how classes and themes were built from that point on.

I do not consider 3.0,3.5, or PF separate editions, more like revisions. It still has the same framework, etc. Much like ad&d, 2nd, and revised are the same game to me. Yes I get there are differences, but the framework, is recognizably the same.

I guess I look at them like an evolutionary tree. D&d basic the trunk, and ad&d, 3.x and 4e separate limbs and the branch's are the updates, revisions and editions in between. Hope that clarifies where I'm coming from, I'm using my phone for these posts so I lose track of some of the discussion at times.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

13 people marked this as a favorite.

Edition warring is still boring and pointless.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
Edition warring is still boring and pointless.

Maybe not in the future.

1-2nd edition. OSRIC. Hackmaster.
3rd-3.5.. Pathfinder.
4th. People out of luck soon, unless Wizards has more announcements in store. Time will tell.

Collary: Yea OGL, thank Wizards for that. (And Paizo for respecting it.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

D&D is dead. Long Live Pathfinder. (imho of course, ymmv, yadda yadda, etc.)

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Tell that to my D&D group. :P


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Tell that to my D&D group. :P

Address? ;)

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Austin, TX.


D&D is not dead, and it will never die.

If Paizo got the rights to D&D they could shoot it up with steroids and make it awesome!

Andoran

*Looks over at the shelf with the Gygax AD&D hardcovers*

Nope, didn't dissolve or disappear, seems D&D is still alive.

*Looks over at the Planescape setting box*

Nope, still there.

*Looks at the 3.5 FR stuff*

Still there.

*Looks at the 1e and 2e PDFs he gleaned before WotC pulled the plug*

Hmm. And on a backup drive.

D&D isn't about the edition, it's about the game. D&D will never be dead in my home as long as I draw breath.


Outside of D&D, how often do edition wars go off in the RPG industry?

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, dude, you don't know about oWoD/nWoD, do you? you think this was bad, you should see emo kids cry...


houstonderek wrote:
Oh, dude, you don't know about oWoD/nWoD, do you? you think this was bad, you should see emo kids cry...

Oh, I think I've heard this story before. Some RPG companies are just merciless aren't they?


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

I hear Paranoia almost had an edition war, but the Computer disapproved.


Never mind the Edition Wars, you should see the ERA wars among BattleTech fans.

The Star League, 3025, 4th Succession War, War of 3039, Clan Invasion, Twilight of the Clans, FedCom Civil War, Word of Blake Jihad and Dark Age all have their own little group of polarized fans who will insist theirs is the true BattleTech.

Given BattleTech is a single unified system, it makes all this 'edition war' nonsense look like a pleasant afternoon stroll.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Franklin wrote:
I hear Paranoia almost had an edition war, but the Computer disapproved.

Citizen! Spreading Rumors about Friend Computer is TREASON!

Please report to the nearest termination center at your earliest convenience.


Not only nWoD, but warhammer fantasy, exalted, Conan, starwars, I swear I'm forgetting some...

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Star Wars? Um, there's only one edition of that, d6 WEG...

;-)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Traveller, uh MegaTraveller, TNE, that... thing... that came after it, GURPS Traveller, d20 Traveller, Mongoose Traveller.

And let's not even get into canon wars that happen within editions.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:

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.

Well, that was a compelling sales pitch.

Best wishes on your new Fantasy D20 game (or retirement), though!

Osirion

Rolemaster has several Editions: The game has gone through a few changes between companies. Players don't 'War', though, they just try and make sense of changes, so as to use the various products with their rules.


houstonderek wrote:

Star Wars? Um, there's only one edition of that, d6 WEG...

;-)

*Cough* Star Wars Revised. A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away revising a game would easily be counted as another edition. But that was the final edition :P

houstonderek wrote:
Oh, dude, you don't know about oWoD/nWoD, do you? you think this was bad, you should see emo kids cry...

A few years ago some third or maybe even half of Polish WoD fans were decrying the nWoD and refusing to come anywhere close to it.

- It's wrongbadawful!
- Ok, what is wrong with it?
- Everything! It's blasphemy!
- Did you read it?
- No! Because its badwrongawful!

The only serious claim against it was criticism of Mage The Awakening Atlantis story (which I gladly ignore). However the problem with it was that people were treating it as adamant unbreakable truth of the universe instead of in-world legend of a specific group of mages.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Dies Irae wrote:

Never mind the Edition Wars, you should see the ERA wars among BattleTech fans.

The Star League, 3025, 4th Succession War, War of 3039, Clan Invasion, Twilight of the Clans, FedCom Civil War, Word of Blake Jihad and Dark Age all have their own little group of polarized fans who will insist theirs is the true BattleTech.

Given BattleTech is a single unified system, it makes all this 'edition war' nonsense look like a pleasant afternoon stroll.

And now apparently we're going to have a post Dark Age jump to 3150 by 2014! :-)

I have issues (subscriptions) with lots of Catalyst decisions, but I also am one who enjoys every era. I'm painting up a Wolverine II now I'm naming 'Grandfather's axe'. It went from a Wolverine II (star league) to a funny looking old tech wolverine (2860-3029) then started getting upgraded through the Dark age. :-)

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Drejk wrote:

A few years ago some third or maybe even half of Polish WoD fans were decrying the nWoD and refusing to come anywhere close to it.

Ok, now I'm wandering off topic (unless you want to plea Paizo buy White Wolf instead. :P

OWoD to NWoD:

Spoiler:
I do like the NWoD engine better than OWoD (death to appearance!) What irritated me was that things were *just* similar enough to cause annoyance.

Mage was incomprehensible to me (this coming from a guy who loved Mage the Ascention) I liked the WTF storyline better than WTA (fuzzy eco-terrorists annoy me) Vampire, I preferred the old WOD. (and I like my Dhampirs, Dhampyrs, and Revenents over the NWoD)

What bothered me was the back pedalling. WTF was the worst for this (the only real shifters are the Werewolves! Oh wait, here's a book with all the changing breeds you missed!) but V:tR also suffered for it (Clans don't matter, coverants do, oh look here are clan books!) I also loved the OWoD's connections to Exalted.

As soon as I have free cash, I'll be getting V:tM 20 (and hopefully order W:tA 20 and M:tA 20) but that's for the OWoD *setting* not so much the mechanics.


Spoiler:
Matthew Morris wrote:
I do like the NWoD engine better than OWoD (death to appearance!) What irritated me was that things were *just* similar enough to cause annoyance.

Engine is streamlines and generally improved. Yup. No more Willpower 10 characters at every corner - Resolve plus Composure is way to go.

Quote:
Mage was incomprehensible to me (this coming from a guy who loved Mage the Ascention)

I had no serious problems with Mage mechanics-wise. I prefer 10 Arcana to 9 spheres. In fact I was considering splitting Entropy into Death and Fate long before nWoD appeared.

The backstory I mostly ignore, as I was doing in the Ascension - as I disliked it quite much (the whole concept that humans minds create laws of universe don't sits well with my inner Lovercraftian "humans are completely unimportant in the universe that gives no sh** about them") I disliked many inconsistencies in the way paradigm works, I disliked the way the Technocracy works (I have a feeling that creators had little knowledge of scientific method and the way the science and scientist are supposed to work).

Quote:
I liked the WTF storyline better than WTA (fuzzy eco-terrorists annoy me)

Sosososomuch this! The best part of WTA was the Book Of Wyrm, 2nd edition section about cults with idea of story where PCs are trying to save young kinfolk from the clutches of a dangerous sect. And they are shown the very process of indoctrination, step by step and have chance of comparing it to their own initiation into werewolf society.

Also, the WTF gains bonus point for acronym.

Quote:
Vampire, I preferred the old WOD. (and I like my Dhampirs, Dhampyrs, and Revenents over the NWoD)

IIRC ghoul families managed to slip back somewhere in clanbooks or covenant books. And I prefer using the name Revenants for bodies that were reanimated by spirits, their own or alien while the ghoul families should be just that, ghoul families.

Quote:
What bothered me was the back pedalling. WTF was the worst for this (the only real shifters are the Werewolves! Oh wait, here's a book with all the changing breeds you missed!) but V:tR also suffered for it (Clans don't matter, coverants do, oh look here are clan books!) I also loved the OWoD's connections to Exalted.

IIRC there were no claims that werewolves are the only shifters. It's that the others were completely unmentioned because they weren't part of Father Wolf retinue and tasks - there was little link between other shifters and werewolves unlike in WTA. And from the start I expected clanbooks, sooner or later. That's the way with publishers.

IMO nWoD really shines when it comes beyond the Vampire-Werewolf-Mage trinity. General books about mortals, alien entities, skinchangers, immortals, psychics (Second Sight, sigh, Second Sight) are great.

Promethean, Changeling and Geist are very interesting, very good and fresh. I had some gripes with the way their power works - they could benefit from more polishing before publication but it's technical issue that can be said about half the oWoD books too.

Quote:
As soon as I have free cash, I'll be getting V:tM 20 (and hopefully order W:tA 20 and M:tA 20) but that's for the OWoD *setting* not so much the mechanics.

From what I heard the VtM20 is very well done. It also has the best mechanic of the oWoD (still with Appearance and no composure/resolve, however).


Matthew Morris wrote:
Drejk wrote:

A few years ago some third or maybe even half of Polish WoD fans were decrying the nWoD and refusing to come anywhere close to it.

Ok, now I'm wandering off topic (unless you want to plea Paizo buy White Wolf instead. :P

Now you've got me wondering what a Paizo-developed WOD would look like...


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Outside of D&D, how often do edition wars go off in the RPG industry?

Go and ask Traveller fans about The New Error sometime.

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:
Hasbro tends not to sell IP "just in case" they need it later. They renewed the rights to Jem and the Holograms a couple years ago, after all...

I find that to be truly outrageous. Truly, truly, truly outrageous.

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

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.

I don't doubt that the people at WotC love it. I doubt that the people who own the property (HASBRO) love it.


Chuck Wright 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.
I don't doubt that the people at WotC love it. I doubt that the people who own the property (HASBRO) love it.

Which only really makes a difference if you believe that Hasbro is hands-on enough with the property for it to have negatively impacted the direction of the game in a significant way. I don't believe that to be the case; everything that I've heard over the years indicates that Hasbro doesn't really involve itself in the micromanagement of individual properties within WotC's portfolio.

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

It makes a difference in the point you were refuting. The folks who own Pathfinder have a personal interest in the property.

Hasbro could also shut down the pen and paper side of D&D with very broad, non-micro-managing strokes as well.

So it's my thought that it matters more than you feel it does.


I just wish Paizo could buy specific rights to use Ghost Walk. I'd love to see what Sean K. Reynolds could do to take it into Pathfinder with all the support from Paizo.

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

4 people marked this as a favorite.

"and if you look to your right, you'll see the same inane Edition War."

*photos snap*

"Oooh...listen closely. You can hear the call of the Angry Hasbro Conspiracy Theorist, and the answering cry of the Hardcore Defender."

True Story: Hasbro executives monitor the amount of toilet paper in the Men's room on the 3rd floor of WotC HQ. They routinely vote on whether to give the employees two-ply or single-ply (the chapped asscheeks of the employees on that floor are evidence of management's decision thus far).

Truer Story: There's a stockholder meeting next month in which the Hasbro executives plan to spend approximately 3 hours explaining the D&D brand in extreme detail, including running an improvised game, because the product is so essential to the company's operations. To not disclose such things would be to commit fraud on the stockholders.


Chuck Wright wrote:

It makes a difference in the point you were refuting. The folks who own Pathfinder have a personal interest in the property.

Hasbro could also shut down the pen and paper side of D&D with very broad, non-micro-managing strokes as well.

So it's my thought that it matters more than you feel it does.

It matters potentially, I suppose. But we don't have any evidence to date of Hasbro's direct micromanagement negatively impacting the direction and design of the game.

You say that the folks who own Pathfinder have a personal interest in the property. That's great. But I think it's more important (much more) that the people who make Pathfinder have a personal interest in the property. And that holds true for the people making D&D as well. As long as the guys who own the property are content to let the guys running it do it the way they think is best, I don't see any reason to make a stink. All of this just looks like baseless "Ha$bro"/WotC-bashing to me.

Is it really so hard to accept that the things some people don't like about 4e are maybe just maybe the result of legitimate design decisions on the part of professionals who are every bit as passionate about the game as you are (and probably moreso)?

You can't even get near the design or R&D payroll of WotC without being a more hardcore gamer than probably 90% of the people on this forum.

Andoran

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.
Scott Betts wrote:
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.
Chuck Wright wrote:
I don't doubt that the people at WotC love it. I doubt that the people who own the property (HASBRO) love it.
Scott Betts wrote:
Which only really makes a difference if you believe that Hasbro is hands-on enough with the property for it to have negatively impacted the direction of the game in a significant way. I don't believe that to be the case; everything that I've heard over the years indicates that Hasbro doesn't really involve itself in the micromanagement of individual properties within WotC's portfolio.

You can love D&D. Just don't "love" D&D...


Heymitch 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.
Scott Betts wrote:
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.
Chuck Wright wrote:
I don't doubt that the people at WotC love it. I doubt that the people who own the property (HASBRO) love it.
Scott Betts wrote:
Which only really makes a difference if you believe that Hasbro is hands-on enough with the property for it to have negatively impacted the direction of the game in a significant way. I don't believe that to be the case; everything that I've heard over the years indicates that Hasbro doesn't really involve itself in the micromanagement of individual properties within WotC's portfolio.
You can love D&D. Just don't "love" D&D...

I hear there are third-party supplements for that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Paizo is doing a great job with Golarion but with just that one setting it is busy. To add in all the baggage that comes from D&D, even just the good baggage, Paizo would have its hands full. I'd rather see Paizo grow on its own roots. I doubt it will be done with Golarion by the time the mechanics need readjustment and a new edition is due. In the mean time, there's nothing stopping you from converting creatures into your home games.


Justin Franklin wrote:
I hear Paranoia almost had an edition war, but the Computer disapproved.

Paranoia edition wars are sanctioned by various secret societies and denied by Internal Security. However Vulture Squads have been dispatched to exter...investigate your claim of edition wars.

*Note 5th edition of Paranoia never existed, any copies seen in existence are propaganda.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
You can't even get near the design or R&D payroll of WotC without being a more hardcore gamer than probably 90% of the people on this forum.

Source? I've seen no evidence of this.


5e just shows they realize a big mistake was made.
That listening to the customers just might have been a good idea afterall...

More like 3.5 + whistles?
Revive the old worlds? Good old FR.. with mystra around :p

Wouldnt be an entirely bad idea businesswise on the surface, however.. are all the customers still there?

Their main advantage is the ability to roll out those hugely thick sourcebooks paizo has found it a bit difficult to make. Correspondinly if dungeon is returned to a paper format and fields those 5-6 player made adventurers a month, pathfinder will have to learn some new tricks, fast.

What is clear, is that 4e was a fiasco, and the customerbase (and thus sales) were largely lost. One does not completely rework old belowed worlds and introduce a new strange encounter system over protests. Just for repeats, i was never convinced by the adventure format wherein the data on the room, treasures and monsters were hidden in 3 completely different sections of the module.

Paizo Employee PostMonster General

noretoc wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
You can't even get near the design or R&D payroll of WotC without being a more hardcore gamer than probably 90% of the people on this forum.
Source? I've seen no evidence of this.

Maybe I'm misreading your comment, but impugning the reputation/gamer cred of the people who work at Wizards really isn't cool.

101 to 150 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.