Will you be switching to D&D Next when it comes out or will you stay with Pathfinder?


4th Edition

101 to 150 of 1,528 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee

We're not switching our primary game, although we were considering using Next for one-shots.

We jumped into the playtest early on. My players really enjoyed the early versions and... lost interest pretty dramatically as WotC started integrating playtest feedback.

The deal-breaker for me, as a GM, was the monsters. I'm perfectly happy running OD&D-style lumps of stats, but even they were annoying with advantage/disadvantage. Many of the others added fiddly abilities that added nothing to encounters.

I was considering picking up the Basic Set, with just the simplest version of the rules, but that product hasn't materialized. Instead they're releasing the Starter Set, which has about a quarter of what I was looking for.

I'll probably leaf through the Monster Manual when it comes out to see if things have improved in there since the last playtest.

Cheers!
Landon

Grand Lodge

My group has already switched to Next using the play test rules. After going through Rise of the Runelords and Carrion Crown, Pathfinder became burdensome, particularly at high levels. I like the speed and simplicity of D&D Next.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If 5E has a SRD available and utilizes an OGL, I will check out the rules and make a determination at that point. If the only legal way of getting my hands on the rules is to purchase them, I won't do so.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
If 5E has a SRD available and utilizes an OGL, I will check out the rules and make a determination at that point. If the only legal way of getting my hands on the rules is to purchase them, I won't do so.

The good news is that you will be able to get the Basic D&D in PDF for free! Levels 1 to 20 for the Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue with races of human, elf, halfling and dwarf.

More information here


DigitalMage wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
If 5E has a SRD available and utilizes an OGL, I will check out the rules and make a determination at that point. If the only legal way of getting my hands on the rules is to purchase them, I won't do so.

The good news is that you will be able to get the Basic D&D in PDF for free! Levels 1 to 20 for the Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue with races of human, elf, halfling and dwarf.

More information here

Quoted for emphasis!

Yes, you can get the basic 5e rules for free(soon). Seriously. I've seen at least 10 people outside of these boards(and many in this thread) complain about the price point, so here ya go.


I'm not sure if I'll pick up D&D Next yet; I have plenty of other RPG books on the shelf as it is. I will certainly check out the two adventures that Kobold Press is producing for WotC and adapt them for either PF or 13th Age if they are good.


There's nothing to lose downloading the free pdf when it comes out. I have a feeling that pdf could hook a lot of people in the game, especially people who are on the fence but don't really want to shell out for the new books. At the very least it will be enough content for groups to run a trial adventure without spending any money, and then if they like the system they can opt to buy other products. If they don't like it then they can keep playing whatever they currently play without having wasted any money.

Dark Archive

P.H. Dungeon wrote:
There's nothing to lose downloading the free pdf when it comes out. I have a feeling that pdf could hook a lot of people in the game, especially people who are on the fence but don't really want to shell out for the new books. At the very least it will be enough content for groups to run a trial adventure without spending any money, and then if they like the system they can opt to buy other products. If they don't like it then they can keep playing whatever they currently play without having wasted any money.

This is exactly what I plan on doing. Pathfinder is my current game of choice, whereas the rest of my group sides with 3.5. When Basic DnD comes out as a free pdf, I'll run a simple adventure, and gauge reactions afterward.


Josh M. wrote:
DigitalMage wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
If 5E has a SRD available and utilizes an OGL, I will check out the rules and make a determination at that point. If the only legal way of getting my hands on the rules is to purchase them, I won't do so.

The good news is that you will be able to get the Basic D&D in PDF for free! Levels 1 to 20 for the Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue with races of human, elf, halfling and dwarf.

More information here

Quoted for emphasis!

Yes, you can get the basic 5e rules for free(soon). Seriously. I've seen at least 10 people outside of these boards(and many in this thread) complain about the price point, so here ya go.

As one of those who complained about the price...which more has to do with my own personal finances at this point in my life than anything else...I don't want a Basic Game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Logan1138 wrote:
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
It looks like they have two big adventure modules listed to come out around the same time the core books are released. Both are tied together and seem to revolve around the Red Wizards and Cult of the Dragon working together to free Tiamat from imprisonment in the nine hells. I have no idea if they will be any good or not. I'm personally not eager to start up another big save the world campaign since I'm currently running Age of Worms and Rise of the Runelords, but I'll definitely keep an eye on what sort of reviews they get.
I miss the old days (i.e. 1st Edition) where a module just consisted of going to a dungeon, beating the crap out of a few monsters, taking their stuff and then heading back to town to blow all that loot without feeling like I was being swept up in some epic, world altering storyline. I enjoy reading stories that chronicle such epic adventures (e.g. Dragonlance or Lord of the Rings) but not playing in them. I guess that makes me in the minority these days as so many adventures seem to be along those earth-shaking story lines.

Take a look at the adventures from Kobold Press. Lots of one shots and one session adventures including some good old fashioned go in and take the stuff. Sounds like you would like them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Sticking with Pathfinder for the following reasons.

#1. It scratches most of my FRPG itches even with legacy items like Vancian casting and the X-mas Tree effect.

#2. I've been with Paizo since RotRL#1 and they've continued to impress and expand the game into new territories without losing sight of what works. Honestly, the bigger threat to my Paizo spend each month is that Golarion's less attractive bits bother me more than the RPG unattractive bits. Midgard continues to impress and so long as the Kobold's continue to support Pathfinder, setting/rules compatibility isn't an issue.

#3. Economics. I'm fortunate enough that my hobby isn't breaking the bank, but rainy days always come around now and again. If my d20 investment prevented me from going to 4e (that and it's design...), that investment is substantially greater now. My days of buying games I won't/can't play are behind me.

#4. If I'm going to break away from Pathfinder in search of something simpler/easier to run, it would be Savage Worlds, not D&DN/5e. Savage Worlds has all of the core components I expect and is much, much easier to customize without sacrificing setting/story flavor.

#5. D&DN/5e - It just isn't appealing to me and WotC's business model of the last 5-6 years is just at odds with what I want from RPG publishers. I like my OGL, my HeroLab, & my 3rd-party publisher support. I like my free PDF with my hardcopy subscriptions. I like not seeing Christmas layoffs, etc.

As a side note, if/when a Pathfinder 2.0 comes around, if it's a "rewrite" New Edition rather than a "update" New Edition, then I'll either stick with the current edition of Pathfinder or switch over entirely to Savage Worlds.

I'm pretty much done with Edition Treadmills, especially for "D&D-style Fantasy".


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I would love to dump Pathfinder but unfortunately the rest of my game group seems to be disinclined to do that. I do not hate Pathfinder as badly now as I used to but I still find the rules to be overly complicated and clunky. I much prefer rules light narrative systems.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer wrote:


As one of those who complained about the price...which more has to do with my own personal finances at this point in my life than anything else...I don't want a Basic Game.

Correction - a FREE Basic Game (plus the extras that will be added, FOR FREE, when the PHB, MM and DMG come out).

Did they have to start throwing in free puppies too?

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

According to Amazon.com, customers who pre-ordered the D&D Player's Handbook also purchased the Advanced Class Guide, the Emerald Spire Superdungeon, the Technology Guide, the Monster Codex, and the Inner Sea Campaign Guide, among other items.

I think most gamers will buy whatever products look cool. "Switching" implies that one system is used exclusively, which I'm not sure is the case.


The announcement of D&D next, is what drove me to Pathfinder. I thought Fourth edition D&D was fine, but when the new edition was announced, the pbp forum on the WotC site just shriveled away. They should have made the location easier to find, if they wanted to keep me as a customer. I'm not going to buy a game that I don't get to play.

So, no, not switching. If Paizo churns out a second edition Pathfinder, I may just give up on the hobby, completely.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Waterhammer wrote:
So, no, not switching. If Paizo churns out a second edition Pathfinder, I may just give up on the hobby, completely.

*shrug*

A second edition of Pathfinder is inevitable; it's simply a question of time. The only person who you're going to hurt by rage-quitting is yourself.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Waterhammer wrote:
So, no, not switching. If Paizo churns out a second edition Pathfinder, I may just give up on the hobby, completely.

*shrug*

A second edition of Pathfinder is inevitable; it's simply a question of time. The only person who you're going to hurt by rage-quitting is yourself.

@bugleyman - perhaps tather than a "rage-quit" this is an indication of a long-held edition fatigue.

Liberty's Edge

Terquem wrote:

I'm kind of an old guy. And sometimes I say things that are sort of simplistic in nature.

In 1979 twenty dollars would fill two bags with groceries

I went shopping at Winco Foods last night and got two bags of groceries and it cost me fifty dollars.

So, to me, the price seems about right, even if it does bother me a bit.

I started playing D&D in 1976. I’ve played every version of the game (and a few other RPG’s as well, but D&D is my all time favorite). I switched to Pathfinder a few years ago. I like it, though as a system it is smarter than I am. I will buy the fifth edition books, and give them a try, but I don’t imagine, from my personal experience with the fourth edition, that it will be my go to system.

So, to bags of groceries would get you the Monster Manual and 2/3 of a PHB ($12 ea., DMG was a larger book and cost $15)*, and two bags now will get you just one book. Hmmm.

*purchased in the order of release. MM in '77, PHB in '78, DMG in '79.


houstonderek wrote:


So, to bags of groceries would get you the Monster Manual and 2/3 of a PHB ($12 ea., DMG was a larger book and cost $15)*, and two bags now will get you just one book. Hmmm.

*purchased in the order of release. MM in '77, PHB in '78, DMG in '79.

So, you got ripped off? :D My PHB and MM were $9.95. The prices in the PHB list the "collectible" original boxed set at $14.99 (up from the original $10) and the original supplements at $7.50 each (up from $5.00). I don't recall the DMG price. By then they had ceased putting prices in the product list they put in back. TBH I don't recall exactly what I did pay for them, but it seemed like a lot at the time. And worth every penny of it :)


I have a friend who's interested in purchasing and running 5E, who's been tracking the playtests.

So I might wind up playing it, but I have no intention of ever running it or buying the books.

Overall I liked 4E (excluding what they did to the Realms) right up to and including Dark Sun. It felt like WotC had really gotten a handle on what they could do with the system and were doing really cool things with it. I enjoyed watching the evolution of the system.

And then WotC did a complete about-face and launched the Essentials line.

That plus the shenanigans with the D&D Insider tools (in short, WotC discontinued the excellent downloadable tools and tried to force subscribers to the utterly inferior online-only tools) left me feeling like I'd sunk hundreds of dollars into 4E just to get kicked in the teeth.

I cancelled my Insider subscription the night I finished the 4E game I'd been DMing, and I haven't spent a cent on WotC since.

I don't trust WotC to put out a good product, and I don't trust them to not screw it up if they DO put out a good product.

And no, WotC's massive design team turnovers are not a plus in my book. See "I don't trust them to not screw it up if they DO put out a good product."

Ugh. Sorry for venting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Waterhammer wrote:
So, no, not switching. If Paizo churns out a second edition Pathfinder, I may just give up on the hobby, completely.

*shrug*

A second edition of Pathfinder is inevitable; it's simply a question of time. The only person who you're going to hurt by rage-quitting is yourself.

There's second editions, and second editions. Personally I'd wait to see what kind of "second edition" it was.

If it was, as with most RPGs, an iterative revision to fix some things that needed fixing, make some clarifications, include some things that were changed since the original version, even completely rewrite some classes from scratch and rewrite the rules descriptions to make things easier to understand, but still be the same base game underneath it all (think CoC between 1st and 7th, AD&D 1st to 2nd, WFRP 1st to 2nd, D&D 3.0 to 3.5, BECMI boxed sets to Rules Cyclopedia), that's fantastic. I'll happily buy a new CRB based on that principle every couple of years.

If it was a "hey, we just threw out the old rules and designed a brand new game from scratch, only reusing the old name to fool you into thinking it's the same thing, which means you'll have to buy a new version of every single book we ever published just to have the same features in this one as you did before. Oh, and obviously this will be no better than previous versions because in a few years we'll realize it was just as broken as all the other versions and needs redoing all over again.", then yeah, that'd be me out too. I'm interested in playing and buying material for this game, not in starting over with a brand new one. If I actually want a new game, I'll look for a new game, I don't appreciate having that decision made for me by a publisher tearing the ongoing support for my current game out from under me.

The litmus test for me is pretty simple - if the current bestiaries and adventures plug into the new edition without having to take out a sheet of paper to recalculate stat blocks, it's all good.


The stat blocks look very simple so may need some adjustment. AC seems to not get very high and there doesn't seem to be any formulae used to make them

Baddies n monsters don't need pc 'level' of stat blocks

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Matt Thomason wrote:


If it was a "hey, we just threw out the old rules and designed a brand new game from scratch, only reusing the old name to fool you into thinking it's the same thing, which means you'll have to buy a new version of every single book we ever published just to have the same features in this one as you did before. Oh, and obviously this will be no better than previous versions because in a few years we'll realize it was just as broken as all the other versions and needs redoing all over again.", then yeah, that'd be me out too. I'm interested in playing and buying material for this game, not in starting over with a brand new one. If I actually want a new game, I'll look for a new game, I don't appreciate having that decision made for me by a publisher tearing the ongoing support for my current game out from under me.

I dunno...sometimes a complete overhaul is warranted, especially for an older property. For example, the move from AD&D to D&D 3rd edition struck me as a good thing overall, even though the game changed dramatically.

Now, I don't think Pathfinder is as mechanically clunky and disorganized as AD&D was, so a smaller change to clear up a few issues would probably be more warranted. Then again, I think Paizo has built up enough credit as being a producer of high-quality stuff that even a more radical change in a hypothetical 2nd edition would get at least a cursory glance from me. When you produce enough great gaming material, you get the benefit of the doubt for a while.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Brooks wrote:
Then again, I think Paizo has built up enough credit as being a producer of high-quality stuff that even a more radical change in a hypothetical 2nd edition would get at least a cursory glance from me. When you produce enough great gaming material, you get the benefit of the doubt for a while.

I guess that one comes down to a difference of perspective in why we buy and play what we do :)

When my game of choice is no longer supported, I'm left in the position of trying to finding a new source of support for it. i.e. a repetition of my move to Pathfinder from 3.5e. That's my preferred option.

If there's no acceptable new sources of support (and given the plethora of 3PPs out there doing Pathfinder stuff, I'm pretty certain at least one of them would pick up the ball and run with it) then my next option is to change games. At that point, I'm left back at square one, and will likely look at all the possible options out there. I can only afford an ongoing monthly expense on one, so I'm going to do my research. It's likely I'd pick something that's already established to some degree rather than something that's being hyped as the replacement for my previous game. I'm also left with a big negative mark against the publisher that's pulled my previous game support (and I'm a huge advocate of sending messages to publishers that replacing games rather than making iterative improvements to them isn't an acceptable move for many of us, so giving them that benefit of the doubt would, in my particular case, make me feel quite hypocritical. I've only now reached the point where I'm willing to give WotC a look for 5e, and even then just to grab the core books as I'm not willing to divert my monthly Pathfinder budget to 5e)

Now, personally, I feel there'd be no radical changes in a 2nd edition - Paizo know why a lot of their customers became their customers, and they know the current version is doing its intended job - selling the APs. They don't have the same dependence on needing to re-sell us new copies of everything that WotC were in during 3e/4e to need to enforce obsolescence of previous material, their main income comes from selling adventures - so as long as the adventures are selling, I think it's kinda a moot point.

I do think, though, they'd be silly not to be currently working (however slowly) in the background on a brand new edition of the CRB. I just think (and hope) it'll be a rewritten, enhanced, re-thought-out edition of the current game (quite possibly with brand new versions of some classes with established issues) and not a new game developed from scratch - after all, its whole purpose is to sell the APs, and I don't imagine they want the hassle of retooling all the AP authors to work with a new system either ;)

I also think there's possibly a market for another RPG or three in the Paizo stable alongside Pathfinder, to help widen their audience, but not at the Pathfinder scale of releases (where it'd start competing with PF supplements for people's monthly RPG budget) - perhaps some standalone rulebooks with one or two supplements though. I'd like to see that.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

Now of course if you are able to play multiple games and you are able, and want, to play both then you are lucky. Some of us don't have that luxury and have to decide which game they will run. I am planning on buying the books but I think my group and I will continue with Pathfinder while maybe playing a game of D&D every now and then in the future.

How about you?

I'm going to pick up the books and see. It looks promising, unlike what I saw coming out with 4e. And while I like the core pathfinder game, in many ways its jumped the shark with me, and I no longer subscribe as I was once a charter subscriber. paizo of today isnt the same paizo of 5-6 years ago, for me.

So looks promising, and since I'd be DMing, I'll give it a shot.


I will purchase the core, but I will not be switching editions.

Pathfinder has everything I need and I will continue to purchase every PF hardcover produced until Paizo overhauls the system.

Paizo Employee

Zhangar wrote:

I don't trust WotC to put out a good product, and I don't trust them to not screw it up if they DO put out a good product.

And no, WotC's massive design team turnovers are not a plus in my book. See "I don't trust them to not screw it up if they DO put out a good product."

This one is actually a big deal for me too. If I'm buying into a multi-book system, it's because I expect it to have good ongoing support.

Even though Mike Mearls designed one of my favorite RPGs (Iron Heroes) and he's by all reports a great guy, I can't trust anything he says about the future. Not because I think he might be lying, but because his chain of command includes people I don't know or trust and, as much as it sucks to say it, he might not even be there after any given round of layoffs.

At best, I can consider each product on its own once it's in my hands, but there's no way I'd accept a product "to be continued" or sign up for a subscription.

Cheers!
Landon


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Undecided.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
R_Chance wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


So, to bags of groceries would get you the Monster Manual and 2/3 of a PHB ($12 ea., DMG was a larger book and cost $15)*, and two bags now will get you just one book. Hmmm.

*purchased in the order of release. MM in '77, PHB in '78, DMG in '79.

So, you got ripped off? :D My PHB and MM were $9.95. The prices in the PHB list the "collectible" original boxed set at $14.99 (up from the original $10) and the original supplements at $7.50 each (up from $5.00). I don't recall the DMG price. By then they had ceased putting prices in the product list they put in back. TBH I don't recall exactly what I did pay for them, but it seemed like a lot at the time. And worth every penny of it :)

No, the actual retail price of the books, in 1980, were $12, $12, and $15. MSRP. According to several different inflation calculators, the MM and PHB today, if they just increased at the rate of inflation, would be $34 dollars (and the PHB was mostly text in a smaller font than now, with less spacing, so the amount of text per page is much higher, and the Monster Manual, because the stat blocks were much smaller, sometimes had four monsters on a page) and $42 for the DMG.

I agree they were worth every penny, but the books were actually worth more, to me, because they were denser in text, and were much sturdier books built to last, unlike modern books, which are glued together and tend to wear out much more quickly than the 1e books. My 1980 PHB, after thirty four years, looks new enough that one of the guys that came down for last weekend's "FAWTL-con" asked if it had been in storage for the past three decades. The Paizo core book next to it on the shelf (which is maybe three years old) doesn't look half as good from less use.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you look on the back of most of the hardcovers (the first printings are hit and miss, but the first printing of the Deities and Demi-goda and Fiend Folio both have them) there is a TSR product number above the ISBN, which have a number (on the Fiend Folio it was 394-52174-9TSR1200, Monster Manual II was xxxxx-OTSR1200, Monster Manual was xxxx-1TSR1200).

The "1200" after TSR was the price. $12.00. Consistent across the non-DMG hardback through the early Eighties. The DMG went from $15 to $18 when they did the reprints with the new covers, though.

I'm glad you got yours on sale.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll be sticking with Pathfinder.

Here's my reasons. I played Basic D&D and AD&D, then 2nd Edition. I missed 3e and 3.5 completely. And when I started back up it was with 4E, which I played for several years. It was fine at first, but eventually, especially as our character levels increased, the combats became so burdensome. It was 15 minutes of roleplaying, a battle would ensue and 2 hours later it was resolved. The balance was way off. About that same time DnDnext first playtest packet came out. We tried it, we like it. But then with each of the next few packets we liked it less.

At this point it was closing in on GENCON last year. I found out that the final DnDnext rule system wouldn't come out for another year. By this time Wizards had pretty much quit supporting 4E. I didn't want to be in roleplaying limbo for another year and decided to take a look at Pathfinder. Everyone else around seemed to be really enjoying it. Bought the CRB and liked most of what I saw.

GENCON 2013 arrived and I scheduled 2 DnDnext events and 1 PFS event. While I had fun at all of them. I was not overall impressed with Next. In one case, I was let down by the fact that a game scheduled for 4 hours took all of about an hour and a half, and that was with a good DM stretching it. One the other hand my PFS scenario had been a blast, it finished early too but I felt like I had played a full and fun adventure. In fact, I went back looking for more and squeezed into a We Be Goblins! game. My mind was made up -- Pathfinder it was.

Now my gaming groups have all switched over and we have no complaints. Sometimes combats can drag on, but on a whole the RP/combat balance feels correct and the best part is it's the story that benefits and isn't that what really matters, good stories.

Then the factor that puts things over the top for me…the companies. Paizo to me seems fast moving, customer focused, transparent, they want you to know what is going on and get on board and enjoying what they have to offer. They want to provide you all the tools you need to enjoy your games, hardcover books, pdfs, adventure paths, scenarios, minis, maps, other cool accessories, you name it.

Then Wizards, it seems to me to be secretive, slow moving, not really customer focused, all about making a profit. I’ve given Wizards lots of money over the years and I’m done with it, because I don’t feel like they value me as customer. Paizo feels different in that regard.

So after polling my peeps, it was unanimous we are having a great time with Pathfinder, no reason to change.


Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
@bugleyman - perhaps tather than a "rage-quit" this is an indication of a long-held edition fatigue.

Yeah, I should have phrased that better. It's just that dumping the hobby altogether over new editions just seems self-defeating. New editions happen; as long as they're an improvement, it's all good.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I remember my mom bought me my first Monster Manual at Hallmarks (of all places) for 12 bucks - I'm glad she didn't actually open the book to see what was inside (Demons, etc).

I can't for the life of me remember what I paid for my first copy of Barrier Peaks - I remember it was a special supersized module - was it 8.00 dollars? MSRP on the back says so, could have sworn it was more.

Probably felt like more because all my other modules were 5.50 or 5.99.

-------------------------------

The more I hear about Next the more I like it. I don't like or trust the company making it though so I can understand all the concerns (I have plenty myself).

If I can get a true AD&D 3 - something I've been working on for the last few years - then I will convert. At that point I will probably have to switch all my Frog God Games purchases to Swords and Wizardry (0E) since I can't expect Wotc (or Paizo for that matter) to write decent modules in the future. The former is just incapable of writing good modules (the whole 3.0-3.5 has no standout modules) and the latter writes too many softball/gimmick/look how cool we are modules for my taste.
If they (wotc) can provide a Basic/AD&D/AD&D2 supported level of play I'm all in. It sounds like they are going to "try" to support all styles of play - don't know how they are going to do that.

What I won't support: limited pdfs (or access to), online subscription or some other restrictive model then I will not be in. If I buy a product I want all aspects of it available to me offline.

Chaosorbit wrote:
Then the factor that puts things over the top for me...the companies. Paizo to me seems fast moving, customer focused, transparent, they want you to know what is going on and get on board and enjoying what they have to offer. They want to provide you all the tools you need to enjoy your games, hardcover books, pdfs, adventure paths, scenarios, minis, maps, other cool accessories, you name it.

LOL!!!

Anti-Paizo Mini-Rant, spoilerd for the sensitive:
Customer focused is the best part.
I guess that's true if you worship their design direction, product focus/priority (players), social view's, and do not criticize them then that's great - otherwise they are also very happy to say "get out, we don't need you" when confronted with anyone raising concerns about pretty much anything. IMO Paizo puts out whatever the hell they want to, and the fanbase just reacts with exuberance (I have no idea why). This is not a: Player/DM - "Hey, we need this", Paizo - "OK", situation. Never has been and probably never will be. They put out what they want, then everyone is convinced that was what then wanted in the first place when no one asked for it (in most cases, APs are fan based - sort of).
I also believe that in the last few years Paizo has grown incredibly arrogant in how they treat and interact with their customers - figuring the "take it or leave it" attitude would be unchallenged since they are the only largely supported game in town. Hopefully that will end very soon - the competition could be good for both companies.

I wish what you said was true Chaos, it isn't.
This isn't the place to hash all of that out - plus I don't want the mod police in here sanitizing this thread. I just don't see it the same way, nor do I see the good guy/bad guy paradigm - they are both companies out to make a buck.


bugleyman wrote:
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
@bugleyman - perhaps tather than a "rage-quit" this is an indication of a long-held edition fatigue.

Yeah, I should have phrased that better. It's just that dumping the hobby altogether over new editions just seems self-defeating. New editions happen; as long as they're an improvement, it's all good.

Yup. I get your point though. Leaving the hobby does seem slightly unnecessary.

Additionally, even if Paizo release a 2nd Ed. that is markedly different/not backwards compatible with PF 1.0/3.75/3.5 I can still play all the stuff I have now. Just because the companies publish stuff (new editions) I may not want for whatever reason, doesn't mean it invalidates the stuff I have, nor the enjoyment I get from utilizing it for years to come.


Auxmaulous wrote:
This isn't the place to hash all of that out - plus I don't want the mod police in here sanitizing this thread. I just don't see it the same way, nor do I see the good guy/bad guy paradigm - they are both companies out to make a buck.

Agreed on all counts. :)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:


Chaosorbit wrote:
Then the factor that puts things over the top for me...the companies. Paizo to me seems fast moving, customer focused, transparent, they want you to know what is going on and get on board and enjoying what they have to offer. They want to provide you all the tools you need to enjoy your games, hardcover books, pdfs, adventure paths, scenarios, minis, maps, other cool accessories, you name it.

LOL!!!

[spoiler=Anti-Paizo Mini-Rant, spoilerd for the...
I wish what you said was true Chaos, it isn't.
This isn't the place to hash all of that out - plus I don't want the mod police in here sanitizing this thread. I just don't see it the same way, nor do I see the good guy/bad guy paradigm - they are both companies out to make a buck.

Auxmaulous, no worries, that was just my opinion. I've only been dealing with Paizo for around a year, so maybe I'm just still in the honeymoon period. And I agree they are out to make a buck, just like Wizards. Just seems like they are doing it in a way that satisfies there customers better than Wizards has since the pre-Hasbro days. If people are hailing Paizo for what they are producing, even if they aren't asking the customers for feedback and have a "my way or the highway" approach, then they seem to have the pulse on what the community wants. If they lose that they will suffer. But for now I feel like they are more than meeting my RPG needs. That's all I was trying to say. Your mileage may vary.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chaosorbit wrote:


Then Wizards, it seems to me to be secretive, slow moving, not really customer focused, all about making a profit. I’ve given Wizards lots of money over the years and I’m done with it, because I don’t feel like they value me as customer. Paizo feels different in that regard.

I can respect not liking Wotc because of 4E. Toward the end I disliked some of the 4E material enough to no longer play 4E. I'm not going to blame them for wanting to make a profit

Here the thing though. EVERY rpg company or at least the well run ones want to make a profit. Paizo is no different than Wotc in that regard. As last time I checked it's not a non-profit organization. Their rules are free. Everything else is not. They have staff, rent and have to pay for books to be published. Which requires money of some kind. Made through sales. Which generate a profit. The whole " I like rpg company XYZ which means they don't want to make a profitable rpg" line of reasoning needs to stop. Every company rpg or not want to have a successful and profitable business.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
If it was a "hey, we just threw out the old rules and designed a brand new game from scratch, only reusing the old name to fool you into thinking it's the same thing, which means you'll have to buy a new version of every single book we ever published just to have the same features in this one as you did before. Oh, and obviously this will be no better than previous versions because in a few years we'll realize it was just as broken as all the other versions and needs redoing all over again.", then yeah, that'd be me out too. I'm interested in playing and buying material for this game, not in starting over with a brand new one. If I actually want a new game, I'll look for a new game, I don't appreciate having that decision made for me by a publisher tearing the ongoing support for my current game out from under me.

See, this is why WotC can't win. If they deliver a new edition that overhauls the game or approaches it from a different design perspective, one contingent of people get upset. If they deliver an iterative update that patches holes but doesn't make any drastic changes, another contingent of people get upset. In the first instance, WotC is accused of "tearing ongoing support out from under" the players. In the latter instance, WotC is accused of fleecing its customers by asking them to buy a whole new set of books with only minor changes.

No matter which choice they make, a lot of gamers will decide WotC must be greedy.

The problem is that the group of gamers who are put out by the decision don't stop to consider that WotC is making a certain group of people very happy, and that maybe they have some alright reasons for making the decisions that they are making (to say nothing of the fact that they need to keep the edition treadmill turning in order to keep D&D viable as a business - no one has figured out a way around this yet).

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

D&D burned a lot of people on their way out last time. Until I run out of PFS games to play, here I stay.


As someone who enjoys the strengths of both 4E and Pathfinder, I'm undecided about Next. The one playtest I tried didn't go well, but that was very early on, so some of the issues I had may have been resolved.

That being said, I've been kind of turned off by WotC's discussion-style design posts that, in my opinion, spend too much time asking the players if X or Y is alright. I understand this from a mechanical perspective, but when it comes to fluff, lore and other aesthetic bits, I dislike the focus on making sure that every race and monster appeals to enough people before getting the okay. It may help garner approval from the largest player base, but it doesn't give me a lot to be surprised by or interested in. I enjoy the flavor and setting of an RPG system as much as its rules, perhaps more so.

That being said, a few polls on a website aren't the only factors that go into a product, and I may be misrepresenting the work of the current WotC staff in my head, so like many I am waiting to see the end result before I make any decisions. Still, between 4E and Pathfinder, I'm not sure what Next will give me to fill out some unspent niche in my repertoire.

Paizo Employee

5 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Here the thing though. EVERY rpg company or at least the well run ones want to make a profit. Paizo is no different than Wotc in that regard.

Speaking not as a Paizo fan here, but as a small business owner and a refugee from corporate America: There's a huge difference between "privately-owned LLC trying to make a profit" and "publicly-traded company trying to make a profit."

The owners of LLCs will generally want to cover costs, support themselves, and hopefully pay their staff living wages. Obviously, that's going to require some money, but past that point it's completely in the owners' court.

For the vast majority of publicly-traded companies, you're looking at owners like Capital Research Global Investors and Vanguard Group. Which is to say: owners with a responsibility to their clients to eek every last dollar out of the company that they can.

There are certainly small business owners who act as though it's their job to accumulate as much money as possible, regardless of how that impacts the business's workers or customers. But, in the case of a publicly-traded company, you'll probably have owners for whom that is literally their job.

Cheers!
Landon


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
See, this is why WotC can't win.

There are always going to be people for whom the definition of wrong is "what WotC does." That's just the nature of fandom.


Landon Winkler wrote:

Speaking not as a Paizo fan here, but as a small business owner and a refugee from corporate America: There's a huge difference between "privately-owned LLC trying to make a profit" and "publicly-traded company trying to make a profit."

The owners of LLCs will generally want to cover costs, support themselves, and hopefully pay their staff living wages. Obviously, that's going to require some money, but past that point it's completely in the owners' court.

For the vast majority of publicly-traded companies, you're looking at owners like Capital Research Global Investors and Vanguard Group. Which is to say: owners with a responsibility to their clients to eek every last dollar out of the company that they can.

There are certainly small business owners who act as though it's their job to accumulate as much money as possible, regardless of how that impacts the business's workers or customers. But, in the case of a publicly-traded company, you'll probably have owners for whom that is literally their job.

Cheers!
Landon

Unfortunate, but true.

Silver Crusade

Landon Winkler wrote:
memorax wrote:
Here the thing though. EVERY rpg company or at least the well run ones want to make a profit. Paizo is no different than Wotc in that regard.

Speaking not as a Paizo fan here, but as a small business owner and a refugee from corporate America: There's a huge difference between "privately-owned LLC trying to make a profit" and "publicly-traded company trying to make a profit."

The owners of LLCs will generally want to cover costs, support themselves, and hopefully pay their staff living wages. Obviously, that's going to require some money, but past that point it's completely in the owners' court.

For the vast majority of publicly-traded companies, you're looking at owners like Capital Research Global Investors and Vanguard Group. Which is to say: owners with a responsibility to their clients to eek every last dollar out of the company that they can.

There are certainly small business owners who act as though it's their job to accumulate as much money as possible, regardless of how that impacts the business's workers or customers. But, in the case of a publicly-traded company, you'll probably have owners for whom that is literally their job.

Cheers!
Landon

And really that's all I was trying to say too. I know Paizo is in the game to make money, of course they are. My point with Wizards is you can see the bottom line thinking in there decision making and this goes to Magic as well. Which I have played on and off since it came out. I guess the bottom line is Wizards feels corporate to me; while Paizo feels "Indie". And hey "Indie" is cool, right. Again just one man's opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chaosorbit wrote:
Landon Winkler wrote:
memorax wrote:
Here the thing though. EVERY rpg company or at least the well run ones want to make a profit. Paizo is no different than Wotc in that regard.

Speaking not as a Paizo fan here, but as a small business owner and a refugee from corporate America: There's a huge difference between "privately-owned LLC trying to make a profit" and "publicly-traded company trying to make a profit."

The owners of LLCs will generally want to cover costs, support themselves, and hopefully pay their staff living wages. Obviously, that's going to require some money, but past that point it's completely in the owners' court.

For the vast majority of publicly-traded companies, you're looking at owners like Capital Research Global Investors and Vanguard Group. Which is to say: owners with a responsibility to their clients to eek every last dollar out of the company that they can.

There are certainly small business owners who act as though it's their job to accumulate as much money as possible, regardless of how that impacts the business's workers or customers. But, in the case of a publicly-traded company, you'll probably have owners for whom that is literally their job.

Cheers!
Landon

And really that's all I was trying to say too. I know Paizo is in the game to make money, of course they are. My point with Wizards is you can see the bottom line thinking in there decision making and this goes to Magic as well. Which I have played on and off since it came out. I guess the bottom line is Wizards feels corporate to me; while Paizo feels "Indie". And hey "Indie" is cool, right. Again just one man's opinion.

Paizo wants to make money, but they're also into it for the game, right up to the top of the company. Most of the people working in D&D at WotC are also in it for the game as well as the money, but they answer to higher ups with no interest in the game itself.


I'm a rules agnostic. As a GM, I run 3.5, because I already own all the 3.5 books. Nothing about Pathfinder ever convinced me to switch over. I saw the books. I read through them. Looked at the stuff online. It looks good, they streamlined some stuff, but- not enough to convince me to switch over. I don't do high level games anymore, and that's where all the craziness comes into play anyway. I'd gladly play Pathfinder. No problemo. But as a GM, I have enough material to run 3.5... probably for the rest of my life. In addition to a slew of other games should I get bored. If I liked a Pathfinder module (yeah, I still use module...) I liked, I could still use it for my 3.5 game.

D&D next.. uh... no thanks. Again, I'd play it. If I got in with a good group, maybe I'd even buy a players book or whatever. But who knows. Right now I'm playing Fate Freeport. It's an easy system, I'm still casting magic missile, lightning bolt, fireball, and clairvoyance as a mage, but the system is easy, easy, easy. Plus some other abilities I invented for my guy. Yeah, that's right "invented". Very appealing. Very story focused.

Rant over.

Liberty's Edge

My point still stands IMO. Do different companies of all kind approach making profit from different ways yes IMO. All want to make profit to a certain extent. Maybe some because they or the people in charge want to make money. Others to make money and a quality product. I think both Paizo and Wotc both want to make fun and quality products. After all a bad product as well as a unliked product does not make money. The only hobby I'm seeing at least to me that gets a negative backlash to making money is tabletop RPGs.

No one complains when Apple makes yet another iPhone with little improvements. It also makes fans of the hobby appear incredibly naive and far removed to how the real world works. I like both Paizo and Wotc. To think that because Paizo is the little guy compared to Wotc and not interested in having both a profitable and successful company is again being incredibly naive on purpose. Do you think James Jacobs and anyone else working at Paizo. Are losing any sleep or feeling any regret towards owning and producing for a profitable and popular rpg. They love every second of it. As any person who owns a profitable and successful company should IMO. I think People at Wotc feel the same way.

If one has to dislike 5E find a better, sensible, logical reason than Wotc wanting to make a profit.


memorax wrote:

My point still stands IMO. Do different companies of all kind approach making profit from different ways yes IMO. All want to make profit to a certain extent. Maybe some because they or the people in charge want to make money. Others to make money and a quality product. I think both Paizo and Wotc both want to make fun and quality products. After all a bad product as well as a unliked product does not make money. The only hobby I'm seeing at least to me that gets a negative backlash to making money is tabletop RPGs.

No one complains when Sppkd makes yet another iPhone with little improvements. It also makes fans of the hobby appear incredibly naive and far removed to how the real world works. I like both Paizo and Wotc. To think that because Paizo is the little guy compared to Wotc and not interested in having both a profitable and successful company is again being incredibly naive on purpose. Do you think James Jacobs and anyone else working at Paizo. Are losing any sleep or feeling any regret towards owning and producing for a profitable and popular rpg. They love every second of it. As any person who owns a profitable and successful company should IMO. I think People at Wotc feel the same way.

If one has to dislike 5E find a better, sensible, logical reason than Wotc wanting to make a profit.

That's great. No one is saying "OMIGOD they're evil for wanting to be profitable and successful."

You're fighting a strawman.

It is however reasonable to think that a company whose upper management isn't personally invested in the game itself and for whom the game is not the largest part of their business and who is in fact owned by a larger company with even less knowledge of or investment in the game, might be a little more money driven than a smaller company where the game is their flagship and pretty much everyone up to the highest levels in the company actually plays and enjoys the game?

Making a quality product is one way to make money. It's far from the only one. Cutting corners and cashing in on existing brand loyalty is a great way to make money in the short run. Many companies or divisions of companies, under pressure to show such short term profits, have been known to do so.

Edit: And I've seen this in every hobby I've been at all involved in. Accusations of selling and being only in it for the money are constant.

Liberty's Edge

It may happen in other hobbies yet rpgers are some of the more vocal in my experience. Paizo produces anew book. People complain about rules bloat of being forced to buy it. Wotc no matter what they do same did they do. Damned if they don't. Wotc is greedy evil etc. Yetthe same person happily buys a new iPhone from Apple with no complaints. It bugs when one company is greedy and evil yet another company that does the same thing is above reproach. Simply because the first company is disliked. The second is liked. It's a issue that annoys me go no end. Makes me almost embarrassed to be part of the hobby sometimes, anyway enough with my thread jack,


memorax wrote:
It may happen in other hobbies yet rpgers are some of the more vocal in my experience. Paizo produces anew book. People complain about rules bloat of being forced to buy it. Wotc no matter what they do same did they do. Damned if they don't. Wotc is greedy evil etc. Yetthe same person happily buys a new iPhone from Apple with no complaints. It bugs when one company is greedy and evil yet another company that does the same thing is above reproach. Simply because the first company is disliked. The second is liked. It's a issue that annoys me go no end. Makes me almost embarrassed to be part of the hobby sometimes, anyway enough with my thread jack,

I think you'll find that people who happily buy the new iPhones are, fundamentally, not approaching that product like RPGers who complain about being "forced" to buy the new book and rules bloat. So there's no real point in comparing the two as if there's some kind of consumer hypocrisy going on.

People snap up the new iPhones because their old ones are showing their age/wearing out or they want the new, shiny features in the new model. I think you'll find a lot of gamers approach many games the same way and snap up the new rules supplements for the new shiny as well. And you'll get some people grumbling about either. And even if one person is an enthusiast of one company and product and grumbler about another - there's still no consumer hypocrisy - it's entirely reasonable to have different priorities and opinions about different products and companies.

101 to 150 of 1,528 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Will you be switching to D&D Next when it comes out or will you stay with Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.