People are apparently still buying the rules stuff so why wouldn't Paizo keep making the rules stuff?
Since not everyone buys everything there is to buy, it probably comes down to the decisions of those customers who make choices on a product by product basis.
How many Pathfinder rulebooks are there now? And how would a new customer rank them -- are the new releases as highly regarded (must-haves) as some of the older ones?
So something like the APG might remain a dependable seller while some of the newer ones might be borderline because they are much further down on people's things-I-might-buy-lists.
Maybe I should have been more specific? I was reffering to the purchase of new rule based books from the RPG line.
For Example: If sales from the ACG is doing gangbusters, what impetus does Paizo have to stop making new rule books since people are still buying them in droves?
As for rule books in existence? I believe that there are 15. But I'm going to exclude the 4 Bestiaries, the NPC codex, Ultimate Equipment and the Gamemastery Guide. To me these are very different books than the Advanced Series or the other Ultimate books.Still even if you included all 15 that's 15 books in 5 years? That's roughly 3 a year? Which in itself isnt bad considering the rate that WOTC were churning out the 3x hardcovers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I'd never presume that since I dont like them they need to go. Seriously? WHO DOES THAT?I believe it's so prevalent in TTRPG fandoms because the work staff in the companies that service that fandom tend to be so small, limited in time, and/or busy with projects. The mindset tends to be "If this thing I don't like doesn't exist, that frees up all the people who would otherwise be working on it to come over here instead and work on this thing I DO like".Yeah I can definitely see that as being true in most cases. But in this case there is already a separate campaign setting line (EDIT: D'oh! you've already pointed this out in your post) and Paizo's staff isnt really considered small in the scope of RPG companies. In fact it might be bigger than D&D's right now.
So while normally I'd agree with that particular reasoning I dont think that's the case here.
While I agree that it's not likely to be how things would work out at Paizo, I believe the impression and mindset from some of the fans still IS this way. The truth of how things work behind the scenes is mostly irrelevant if the perception still is "if this project I hate dies then everybody working on it can get reassigned to this project I love instead" - the complaints and demands to kill this or that from disgruntled players will still continue, even if they'll ultimately result in no changes at all, until they're educated that that's not how it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I'd never presume that since I dont like them they need to go. Seriously? WHO DOES THAT?I believe it's so prevalent in TTRPG fandoms because the work staff in the companies that service that fandom tend to be so small, limited in time, and/or busy with projects. The mindset tends to be "If this thing I don't like doesn't exist, that frees up all the people who would otherwise be working on it to come over here instead and work on this thing I DO like".
Also, sometimes players/GMs wanting to use the new rules material can impact existing players/GMs who don't want to (at least leading to a discussion of what people want to include in their game). It can work out great, but it can also lead to tension or conflicts - leading to the mindset of "there's no official rules, so you can't do that" ("no one can ask to play an exotic race before the Advanced Race Guide", for example).
Just to throw the info out there, the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game is another licensed product line. From what I understand, Paizo has only two employees whose sole responsibility involves the card game, Tanis O'Conner and Brian Campbell. Lone Shark Games seems to have the bulk of the developers for it (Mike Selinker, Chad Brown, and Gaby Weilding). Vic obviously puts time into it as well, but I'm sure it is far from his sole responsibility.
I'm not positive, but it doesn't look like a licensed product line to me (I'm not near the box and its art so I can't look at that and see if it has additional logos or text that mentions licenses though I do have one of the free PDFs of the rules handy). It looks more like contracted work to me. Lone Shark gets hired to do the design work for Paizo, not Lone Shark licenses the Pathfinder IP to produce the game as their own publication.
I'm not positive, but it doesn't look like a licensed product line to me (I'm not near the box and its art so I can't look at that and see if it has additional logos or text that mentions licenses though I do have one of the free PDFs of the rules handy). It looks more like contracted work to me. Lone Shark gets hired to do the design work for Paizo, not Lone Shark licenses the Pathfinder IP to produce the game as their own publication.Just to throw the info out there, the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game is another licensed product line. From what I understand, Paizo has only two employees whose sole responsibility involves the card game, Tanis O'Conner and Brian Campbell. Lone Shark Games seems to have the bulk of the developers for it (Mike Selinker, Chad Brown, and Gaby Weilding). Vic obviously puts time into it as well, but I'm sure it is far from his sole responsibility.
Perhaps. In fact, that would potentially be Lone Shark licensing their game design to Paizo (and then doing the design work for it as well). But regardless, the point that Paizo only has 2 employees dedicated to it is still valid.
|
In fairness, there is also a perception that rules bloat is bad for the game in general and can lead to problems for the company. Whether that's true or not is debatable and largely irrelevant: People can be concerned about even if it's wrong and that's a different concern than "Stop making stuff I don't want"
its the rules bloat, and the 'power creep' for me. in something like PFS it becomes harder to judge because you've got a whole nother book of classes you need to be fairly familiar with so that you can tell if players are using them correctly at a table. in a home game or campaign its not as much an issue but in pfs everythings open
Well, no answer is also an answer. ^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the 3.5 situation is already here. When dms say core, this book and that book, and nothing else unless it goes through me. When the bloat gets too large, when the cheese piles up and if dms don't have the time to keep track of it all, it is inevitable.
A young very pro-pf dm I know is realising it now. He found it disheartening. A new pf dm (that ran a great game to the end, so that was sweet) just chose core, ultimate combat and anything else needing approval.
You do what you have to do, when dealing with the black bloat pudding.
I don't quite get why they don't cut and trim what is imbalanced, present all the options for the classes in one place, and balance them. Of course doing this thoroughly and cleaning/updating the rules comprehensively would be pathfinder 2.0.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could you tell me this: How does a feat like Divine Protection come into existance?
I've looked at that feat several different ways now and I don't see it as overpowered, at least not any more powered than the paladin's divine grace ability is overpowered. I can see the argument for the oracle since it relies on Charisma to cast spells but the cleric, inquisitor, and warpriest all use Wisdom, so that is going to be their highest stats. And even then, the inquisitor and warpriest do not have stats that make any use of Charisma and will have to put a 13 in something that could otherwise be a dump stat.
Comparing clerics in the NPC Codex took this feat, the majority would gain a +1 or +2 bonus. Well that is, those that qualified for it; plenty of them didn't meet the Charisma requirement. Sure, it is better than Iron Will and feats, but that feat doesn't require a minimum of an ability score that plenty of people use as their dump stat, a minimum of being 5th level, and limits it to 4 classes (only one of which makes heavy use of the Cha ability).
Like I said, I don't see that feat as being overpowered any more than the paladin is, which, I rank up with the summoner as being overpowered. In a game that routinely pits good vs evil, having a class who's mechanics are dedicated to fighting evil while all the rest are not is, IMHO, overpowered. Divine Protection does nothing more than spreads one aspect of the paladin to a few other classes that also receive power from a deity.
So ... I'm not really seeing the brokenness here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A 1 level dip into Cleric
You mean 3 level dip.
Prerequisite(s): Cha 13, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks, ability to cast 2nd-level divine spells; blessings, domains, or mystery class feature.
Emphasis mine.
And even then it HAS to be cleric. Its a 4 level dip for oracles, inquisitors, and warpriests.
It's even better for all of them than it is for Paladins, since Paladins are much more MAD.
???
Paladin divine grace (which does the same thing) comes in at 2nd level. So a bard could take a 2 level paladin dip and get the same bonus. Plus you'll have a better BAB, smite, etc. When all is said and done, a 2 level dip into paladin is better than a 3 level dip into cleric + splitting ability scores for spellcasting + a specific feat being used.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1 level dip with the right Domain ability
There a couple of domain abilities that give 2nd level spells as SLAs which count for such requirements.
Which? I don't know them off hand.
And ... not at my gaming table that would count. IMO a spell-like ability is different than a spell. It says "spells," not "spells or spell-like abilities."
For example: Harrowed Summoning calls out "spell" or "spell-like ability" in its description of benefits.
1 level dip with the right Domain ability
There a couple of domain abilities that give 2nd level spells as SLAs which count for such requirements.
Which? I don't know them off hand.
And ... not at my gaming table that would count. IMO a spell-like ability is different than a spell. It says "spells," not "spells or spell-like abilities."
For example: Harrowed Summoning calls out "spell" or "spell-like ability" in its description of benefits.
Not being argumentative, but according to Paizo's FAQ (which does have a disclaimer that they will review and may change their minds, though the disclaimer was made on 7/23/2013). The FAQ only addresses prerequisites, so the benefits would still need to specify which it applies to (unless there are other FAQs that broaden what may be Paizo's current notion that SLAs are much closer to spells than they were originally viewed).
Spell-Like Abilities, Casting, and Prerequisites: Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as being able to cast that spell for the purpose of prerequisites or requirements?
Yes.
For example, the Dimensional Agility feat (Ultimate Combat) has "ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door" as a prerequisite; a barghest has dimension door as a spell-like ability, so the barghest meets the "able to cast dimension door prerequisite for that feat.Edit 7/12/13: The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not being argumentative, but according to Paizo's FAQ (which does have a disclaimer that they will review and may change their minds, though the disclaimer was made on 7/23/2013).
Fair enough. But that would not hold water at my gaming table. I wouldn't allow it.
Like I said elsewhere, I'm not an optimizer. Someone who's goal is to play an optimal character instead of a character is going to find a way to break anything.
But that doesn't mean that broken mechanics are fine.
Again, I don't see the mechanic itself as broken. I do, however, see a difficulty for writers to keep up with so many rules that creating new material is difficult as there are unintended, corner cases consequences.
It is the same reason that Wizards redid the Forgotten Realms for 4e. In that case, there was so much setting that if a writer conflicted with something written in 2e days, the fans jumped all over it as being "poorly researched" and "the writer doesn't know what he's doing." In this case, people are jumping all over it this feat as being "broken" and "unbalanced." Same thing. It is also one of the reasons why I think we'll see PFRPG 2.0 in about 4 years. (again, I have no direct insight, just an educated guess)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
FYI...Lisa and Vic were actually in charging of figuring out what went wrong with TSR, and they have stated multiple times that splitting lines (as well as overinvestment in box sets?) was a contributing factor.
I dunno...I see what happened with TSR, and what happened with 4E, and the causal mechanisms behind any financial problems (which I don't really know the significance if any, for 4E) seem completely different. Companies/RPG industry do not have to obey lemming boom or bust cycles.
Yeah, TSR was splitting the market in house, between, say, FR fans and Ravenloft. Almost all were playing AD&D or BECMI or something that TSR published to run them.
4e (and WotC) split the market, but another company was getting the customers that didn't want to play 4e.
Very different circumstances between the two, really.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know it's not popular (or maybe it is), but I'm ready for a Pathfinder 2.0 with a lot of rules clean up from the stuff they learned. Most importantly reigning in crits and no save spells.
I know we're looking at 5E after this Wrath of the Righteous campaign due to rules bloat leading to power bloat. Our group would probably stay with Pathfinder if they start an extensive revision of rules that tones the game down, scales it better so the high level game isn't so rocket tag-like, and improves on what is good about Pathfinder while limiting what makes it hard to run as a DM past the early levels.
They must be recording things that have went drastically wrong, at least I hope they are, even if they aren't fixing them as quickly as needed.
So, basically, completely overhaul 3x. Pathfinder's scaling problems are built into the 3x engine, I'm afraid.
Could you tell me this: How does a feat like Divine Protection come into existance?I've looked at that feat several different ways now and I don't see it as overpowered, at least not any more powered than the paladin's divine grace ability is overpowered. I can see the argument for the oracle since it relies on Charisma to cast spells but the cleric, inquisitor, and warpriest all use Wisdom, so that is going to be their highest stats. And even then, the inquisitor and warpriest do not have stats that make any use of Charisma and will have to put a 13 in something that could otherwise be a dump stat.
Comparing clerics in the NPC Codex took this feat, the majority would gain a +1 or +2 bonus. Well that is, those that qualified for it; plenty of them didn't meet the Charisma requirement. Sure, it is better than Iron Will and feats, but that feat doesn't require a minimum of an ability score that plenty of people use as their dump stat, a minimum of being 5th level, and limits it to 4 classes (only one of which makes heavy use of the Cha ability).
Like I said, I don't see that feat as being overpowered any more than the paladin is, which, I rank up with the summoner as being overpowered. In a game that routinely pits good vs evil, having a class who's mechanics are dedicated to fighting evil while all the rest are not is, IMHO, overpowered. Divine Protection does nothing more than spreads one aspect of the paladin to a few other classes that also receive power from a deity.
So ... I'm not really seeing the brokenness here.
I am actually quite shocked at this answer. Yes, this feat primarily is useful to Clerics and (especially) Oracles. That doesn't excuse how much incredibly better it is than any other comparable feat in the slightest.
Clerics should not be looked up from the NPC guide, given how this feat will primarily be taken by player characters (NPC's in AP's are mostly build with core book mechanics and only a smattering of other splat books, so I don't expect to see it showing up as often as it realistically should in future AP's). For PC clerics, the feat provides a rote +3 to +6 to all saves. For Oracles, it is very probably going to be a +8 to +10 to all saves at the midst of the campaign. This makes Oracles factually immune to all saving throw based threats, which is insane.
As for the Paladin, while I concur that it has a very tight and excellent package (I regard it as the best constructed class in the game), it also has some obvious problems, like non-evil opponents and the difficult to maintain alignment codex. And the Summoner is way, way more powerful than the Paladin, especially if you allow archetypes like the Master Summoner.
So, basically, completely overhaul 3x. Pathfinder's scaling problems are built into the 3x engine, I'm afraid.
That is debatable. I think there are possibilities to reign in the high level problems. Star Wars Saga Edition (also a D20 game) made a fair stab at actually making high level combat feel more balanced than low-level combat (at the cost of making low-level combat feel more unbalanced, so it was not perfect by any measure ^^).
Modules Overlord
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As one of the authors of Star Wars Saga, who also writes Pathfinder (and wrote for 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 D&D), I'll also note that one of the reasons SWSaga scaled differently was that we were emulating a different genre with different exemplars. As long as raising the dead is considered an ability appropriate for 9th-level characters and wish is available to 17th level characters (both fairly iconic elements of the game Pathfinder is built off of), 20 levels of Pathfinder characters are going to scale differently that 20 levels of Saga.
Altering those elements in the way it would take to be closer to Saga scaling would be a big step towards having a different game altogether.
Sure, the balance would be different, but IMO that is what is needed anyway to even out the high level problems. My main point is that you don't need to make the game so samey-samey as 4E turned out to be at every level, but it very probably is possible to file away problems like the large disparity in saving throws between classes at the high levels.
I am not sure if Raise Dead and Wish are the best examples to try to say that Saga and PF are not comparable, though. Saga made it quite harder for characters to die in the first place and Wish is a spell which gets cast maybe once in a typical adventure path campaign.
FYI...Lisa and Vic were actually in charging of figuring out what went wrong with TSR, and they have stated multiple times that splitting lines (as well as overinvestment in box sets?) was a contributing factor.
I dunno...I see what happened with TSR, and what happened with 4E, and the causal mechanisms behind any financial problems (which I don't really know the significance if any, for 4E) seem completely different. Companies/RPG industry do not have to obey lemming boom or bust cycles.
Yeah, TSR was splitting the market in house, between, say, FR fans and Ravenloft. Almost all were playing AD&D or BECMI or something that TSR published to run them.
4e (and WotC) split the market, but another company was getting the customers that didn't want to play 4e.
Very different circumstances between the two, really.
And that's where their story differs from others I've heard.
If you want a split market between worlds and games, there was no market with as many world and campaign possibilities as 3e...believe it or not.
So, when you look at it (because 3rd party campaign worlds ALSO count), their comment doesn't hold as much water in that light (don't get me wrong, I think they were portraying it as they saw it, but I don't necessarily think that view is the accurate or correct one). Now WotC didn't create as many campaign worlds (they created three, and officially sanctioned two others with books with their logos [dragonlance and kalamar], and sanctioned others via websites). They could argue because they only created three [two which already existed], and hence focused the line, but if splintering the lines were really a problem, those three lines would suffer just as much as any other line as they were one of hundreds of different campaign worlds (instead of one out of a dozen in 2e). IMO of course.
However, MANY people buy multiple campaign worlds. Just because you buy Forgotten Realms, doesn't mean you don't buy Dragonlance or other campaign worlds. You was this in 2e, you saw this with 3e. Obviously some sell better then others. WotC negated much of the risk of having a FAILED campaign world and it's investments by having others make those worlds, but it also put more eggs in one basket. If, for some reason their worlds had failed because everyone preferred other campaign settings, it would have been similar to having a failed campaign line, but on a bigger scale since there were less of them.
I'm certain they were telling the truth from their point of view, but it doesn't account for the nigh bankruptcy of 87, and if it were simply dividing the lines, the bankruptcy probably should have hit around 92 when TSR was doing around 90-100 million in sales.
I think what they say was over expansionism (which you could say, is exactly what they stated in a different way, starting up new lines), but it was investing more heavily into lines that did NOT RETURN that same investment. So putting in 2 dollars to something, but only getting one back.
You did see WotC do something different near the second half of 3.5e. It appears they focused more effort on the Forgotten Realms and less on things like Eberron. So they had a situation similar to TSR in that light, with divided/splintered (or whatever you want to call it) lines, with one outperforming the others. They focused more on the one that performed better, with more investment to equal the sales, and less investment to the one that didn't have the returns on the same investments.
With TSR they kept it up with high investment in many of the lines with equal ferocity.Things were selling, but the investment put in wasn't bringing equal sales back in some instances.
Part of it was that they had expanded and expected everything to continue expanding, acted as if they did the right things, the market would grow regardless when it was doing the opposite.
Much of that is minimal though. They had "splintered" the lines since for over a decade. They had tons of different campaign worlds by the early 90s.
A LOT MORE of it was due to a shrinking market share in key areas, and not adapting the business strategy to adapt to that. It doesn't matter if you have splintered lines or only ONE line if you don't have the sales in the key areas to support those lines, or even that one line. WotC's D20 reduced the number of lines they were producing in 4e, and in fact had significantly less support and investment in campaign worlds than they did in 3e. However, they focused sales in areas that were shrinking rather then adapting sales to areas that were expanding.
That's very similar to what you see at TSR during the mid to late 90s also.
It was more, not accounting for a shrinking and changing market than it was splitting the lines. Part of it was also being able to predict, even as some areas were shrinking, other areas were growing for them. In fact, perhaps one of the more successful things in the 90s came from a line split...which was the CRPG Baldurs Gate and the Infinity Engine games. Of course, that was kind of waaay too late for TSR. (granted, it can be VERY VERY hard to predict the future).
In fact if anything, it was the failure to adapt according to what the market wanted in every instance (and they may have tried to adapt, but not in the way the market responded) is what causes the problems.
ALL IMO.
My only thoughts on how to counter changing markets are surveys, studies, and research...a LOT of it. We know TSR really didn't do that, WotC really didn't do that (well, during the later 3.5 and early 4e, IMO, as they were focused on what they wanted and thought the market was changing, rather than how the market really was changing and how to adapt to it.
I'm not seeing a ton of research from Paizo (then again, maybe it's hidden), so I think there should be some worry. I currently see more research coming out of WotC than Paizo (then, maybe it's just the market groups I occupy).
Overall, I liked SWSE. My players and i enjoyed the 1-20 level campaign we ran through. However, I disliked the skills vs. static defenses mechanic, especially at low levels.
-Skeld
Well, I own all the books they released, so I can say that I am a fan. However, the game also had its problems, like every system.
Anyway, getting quite OT here. :D
|
|
FYI...Lisa and Vic were actually in charging of figuring out what went wrong with TSR, and they have stated multiple times that splitting lines (as well as overinvestment in box sets?) was a contributing factor.
I dunno...I see what happened with TSR, and what happened with 4E, and the causal mechanisms behind any financial problems (which I don't really know the significance if any, for 4E) seem completely different. Companies/RPG industry do not have to obey lemming boom or bust cycles.
Yeah, TSR was splitting the market in house, between, say, FR fans and Ravenloft. Almost all were playing AD&D or BECMI or something that TSR published to run them.
4e (and WotC) split the market, but another company was getting the customers that didn't want to play 4e.
Very different circumstances between the two, really.
And that's where their story differs from others I've heard.
If you want a split market between worlds and games, there was no market with as many world and campaign possibilities as 3e...believe it or not.
So, when you look at it (because 3rd party campaign worlds ALSO count), their comment doesn't hold as much water in that light (don't get me wrong, I think they were portraying it as they saw it, but I don't necessarily think that view is the accurate or correct one). Now WotC didn't create as many campaign worlds (they created three, and officially sanctioned two others with books with their logos [dragonlance and kalamar], and sanctioned others via websites). They could argue because they only created three [two which already existed], and hence focused the line, but if splintering the lines were really a problem, those three lines would suffer just as much as any other line as they were one of hundreds of different campaign worlds (instead of one out of a dozen in 2e). IMO of course.
However, MANY people buy multiple campaign worlds. Just because you buy Forgotten Realms, doesn't mean you don't buy Dragonlance...
Actually, in 2e, it did mean you bought one, maybe two. TSR had well over that. And as far as I know, WotC had two settings that got serious support (FR and Eberron), and a few "one offs" (ghostwalk, etc). TSR tried to fully support something like a dozen, if you count BECMI stuff. Most of the "division" you speak of were from 3PPs, not WotC. That's "competition", not killing yourself in-house.
WotC heavily supported Greyhawk as well, most of it in conjunction with other organizations, granted, via their living GreyHawk.
There was a ton of cross buying TSR's stuff. A great majority who bought the lesser settings, also bought most of the larger settings as well.
But with WotC, the dilution was magnified among many different campaign settings simply because of all the 3pp stuff (heck, even Paizo is not WotC these days, and it was a direct competition of D20 with WotC during the 4e days).
With so few, it doesn't take many to be not as accepted as the others to have the same problems.
3e actually had more official ones than 3.5 if you include OA in that mix as well as Modern (One of my favorites by the way) and SW...but that is more strictly D20 rather than D&D.
Let's look at it if the dividing lines actually was a factor...you could say you have 12 campaign worlds under TSR. So if people ONLY bought into one campaign, as you say, and there is 12 dollars, than each campaign only gets one dollar, and TSR gets $12 irregardless of whether it is one campaign, or twelve campaign worlds.
However, under the WotC model, the people still have $12, but they only put out 3 worlds. Hah! You say, that means they should get all $12...right...with each getting $4 a piece! However, it had competition. Instead of WotC putting out all those worlds, instead you had 120 different worlds...and if they split it evenly, that means that only 10 cents is spent on each one, and WotC only gets 30 cents (much less than anything else) of that whole.
This is one reason they probably wanted to go with the GSL and a more restrictive license. It gets tough when you see a majority of gamers money going to other companies instead of your own, especially when it's off of your own system that they are making a profit!
So multiple campaign worlds, doesn't make much sense in that light when you have built into your own system of production a dilution of your own material due to third parties.
Now more into reality, is that TSR started with $120 being spent (the numbers are all figurative by the way) because 10X the people wanted their stuff. Eventually so many wandered off to other pursuits or hobbies, that they were only left with that $12 worth of purchasing power left that people wanted of their stuff. It didn't matter if they had 1 or 12 worlds, the purchasing power of their customers and how much was spent had dwindled.
With WotC, we'll say, at first, with the new and glittery, they went from someone with $12 of stuff, back up to that $120 worth of customer base spending. Even with 120 worlds, they still break even at the $12 mark because with an even split, they still get $4 a world. They don't get the whole pie though, but the base is large enough, they can afford it.
Furthermore, we could jack up that amount a little more, because they are the mainstay and holders of the system, we could say they get 2X that amount at first, so they are making more overall with the larger consumer base.
However, you see it start to dwindle later in 3.5's lifespan, which is when you start seeing the rumblings against OGL and the competition it is making for WotC...because that 2X the amount they were making, has been reduced as other game creators (Iron Kingdoms, and others) gain traction and in some places replace WotC worlds.
Splintering the base doesn't affect you much if you control the entire base...because all the money still comes back to you. As long as you ensure you don't spend MORE developing than you do taking in...you're fine. Part of the problem was developing with the idea that they were expanding instead of contracting...which led to developing more than they were taking in with TSR.
They'd still get the more of the entire slice of the pie, than WotC may have been.
Now, on the otherhand, if you are splintering the groupings and you are competing for the same customers along with others...now that's the bigger problem, and one that WotC created when it started the OGL.
TSR didn't have to compete with it's own systems as it owned all those campaign worlds and hence all D&D monies went to TSR. Their problem was contraction of the market as gamers went elsewhere for their kicks such as White Wolf, video games, and other hobbies...and TSR's adapting in the wrong fashion. Instead of adapting to the trends, it contracted flailing wildly about.
WotC on the otherhand, was competing with itself...or...with it's own system. It didn't own it...which is part of the reason that Pathfinder exists.
WotC's biggest competition didn't come from other hobbies, but from it's own game.
However, even with that said, WotC did try to adapt and change the D20 system (and 4e really is simply a modification of D20 to tell the truth), but it failed to adapt to the changing market forces optimally (it adapted, but it probably could have done better).
You see the same trend...it's not so much splintering, as failure to adapt.
And that's one area where if you don't do a lot of surveys, studies, and research, eventually when the market starts to contract, you'll fall behind.
|
In my opinion what you want to do with the OGL is to encourage 3PPs to publish complimentary products rather than competing ones.
I think Paizo is missing trick with this by not opening up Golarion, and in particular APs, to 3PPs.
It's certainly been done before (Glorantha comes to mind). Paizo could state quite clearly that anything published by 3PPs is not consider canon in exactly the same way that 3PP Pathfinder content is not considered canon.
The advantage, however, would be that 3PPs could publish a whole host of AP-supporting material, in much the same way River Nations was but with greater integration, in order to tailor APs to the various diverse tastes which are found around the community. For example we could have:
Additional side-quests or even major new complimentary adventures
Crib-sheets, charts and other GM aids
Hero-lab content
5 and 6 player conversions
Conversions for pre-pathfinder APs
Updates to APs to bring them in line with the new books
Major overhauls to re-imagine the APs for different play styles (more or less RP, more or less combat, etc).
All of these things would support the sales of APs rather than detract from them.
It seems like a win-win situation to me, and if some 3pp wants to write an adventure where Galactus comes down and devours the whole of Varisia - what does it matter? It wont have happened in the *real* Golarion.
Richard
WotC heavily supported Greyhawk as well, most of it in conjunction with other organizations, granted, via their living GreyHawk.
There was a ton of cross buying TSR's stuff. A great majority who bought the lesser settings, also bought most of the larger settings as well.
But with WotC, the dilution was magnified among many different campaign settings simply because of all the 3pp stuff (heck, even Paizo is not WotC these days, and it was a direct competition of D20 with WotC during the 4e days).
With so few, it doesn't take many to be not as accepted as the others to have the same problems.
3e actually had more official ones than 3.5 if you include OA in that mix as well as Modern (One of my favorites by the way) and SW...but that is more strictly D20 rather than D&D.
Let's look at it if the dividing lines actually was a factor...you could say you have 12 campaign worlds under TSR. So if people ONLY bought into one campaign, as you say, and there is 12 dollars, than each campaign only gets one dollar, and TSR gets $12 irregardless of whether it is one campaign, or twelve campaign worlds.
However, under the WotC model, the people still have $12, but they only put out 3 worlds. Hah! You say, that means they should get all $12...right...with each getting $4 a piece! However, it had competition. Instead of WotC putting out all those worlds, instead you had 120 different worlds...and if they split it evenly, that means that only 10 cents is spent on each one, and WotC only gets 30 cents (much less than anything else) of that whole.
This is one reason they probably wanted to go with the GSL and a more restrictive license. It gets tough when you see a majority of gamers money going to other companies instead of your own, especially when it's off of your own system that they are making a profit!
So multiple campaign worlds, doesn't make much sense in that light when you have built into your own system of production a dilution of your own material due to third parties.
Now more into...
You are missing a view key differences between the two. TSR didn't print or cost products for that split audience. If you cost s book correctly you can split the market for it without an issue. The planscape box set comes up for this one all the time. What should have happened was the box gets developed, production figures out what that will cost, and then sales sets the price. TSR often set the price first, dev made what they wanted, and production produced it.
And TSR overprinted for the demand, see the entirety of the Buck Rodgers line.
WotC often did one off books, a Dragonlance, CoC, etc. those don't split you market as much. TSR often did full product line support for every setting, whether it warranted it or not.
3rd party publishers don't split your costs and profits. Remember that the majority of what WotC did was rules, not setting material for 3E. Which meant any setting could use some, if not all of WotC's books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion what you want to do with the OGL is to encourage 3PPs to publish complimentary products rather than competing ones.
I think Paizo is missing trick with this by not opening up Golarion, and in particular APs, to 3PPs.
It's certainly been done before (Glorantha comes to mind). Paizo could state quite clearly that anything published by 3PPs is not consider canon in exactly the same way that 3PP Pathfinder content is not considered canon.
The advantage, however, would be that 3PPs could publish a whole host of AP-supporting material, in much the same way River Nations was but with greater integration, in order to tailor APs to the various diverse tastes which are found around the community. For example we could have:
Additional side-quests or even major new complimentary adventures
Crib-sheets, charts and other GM aids
Hero-lab content
5 and 6 player conversions
Conversions for pre-pathfinder APs
Updates to APs to bring them in line with the new books
Major overhauls to re-imagine the APs for different play styles (more or less RP, more or less combat, etc).All of these things would support the sales of APs rather than detract from them.
It seems like a win-win situation to me, and if some 3pp wants to write an adventure where Galactus comes down and devours the whole of Varisia - what does it matter? It wont have happened in the *real* Golarion.
Richard
Legendary Games do a Gothic and an Oriental series of adventures and supplements that have "nothing" to do with Carrion Crown and Jade Regent, but totally work well during and in between the adventure paths.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion what you want to do with the OGL is to encourage 3PPs to publish complimentary products rather than competing ones.
I was the first to publish complementary products. The Book of Beasts: Monsters of the River Nations as well as the Book of the River Nations were designed to work with the Kingmaker adventure path.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah was about to say, several people have done such already. They have to be a little oblique in their wording, sure, but it doesn't take much effort to figure out which APs they're referring to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just think the door should be opened wider to allow a proper symbiosis between 3pps and Paizo over the APs. I think it would be good for everyone.
No argument from me.
... *thinks on it*
Edit: email sent to Lisa.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion what you want to do with the OGL is to encourage 3PPs to publish complimentary products rather than competing ones.
I think Paizo is missing trick with this by not opening up Golarion, and in particular APs, to 3PPs.
It's certainly been done before (Glorantha comes to mind). Paizo could state quite clearly that anything published by 3PPs is not consider canon in exactly the same way that 3PP Pathfinder content is not considered canon.
The advantage, however, would be that 3PPs could publish a whole host of AP-supporting material, in much the same way River Nations was but with greater integration, in order to tailor APs to the various diverse tastes which are found around the community. For example we could have:
Additional side-quests or even major new complimentary adventures
Crib-sheets, charts and other GM aids
Hero-lab content
5 and 6 player conversions
Conversions for pre-pathfinder APs
Updates to APs to bring them in line with the new books
Major overhauls to re-imagine the APs for different play styles (more or less RP, more or less combat, etc).All of these things would support the sales of APs rather than detract from them.
It seems like a win-win situation to me, and if some 3pp wants to write an adventure where Galactus comes down and devours the whole of Varisia - what does it matter? It wont have happened in the *real* Golarion.
Richard
I would rather they didn't. I want to see more original stuff from 3pp products, or exploitation of niches that that Paizo can't or won't support.
Also, I respect the ability of creators to exercise control of their setting. Like it or not, if you open Golarion up to 3pp, lots of people will start getting confused over what is and isn't official material, or what is and isn't fair game for things like PFS. Also, Paizo might find sections of their setting getting developed before the get to them, and suddenly you get fan wars of which version of which nation they want to use
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3PPs will tend to gravitate towards where there is most demand. They would still explore niche areas if consumers bought those particular products so as long as there is interest you wont lose that part of the 3pp product line.
As to your other point - well, my experience with Glorantha was that when Greg Stafford bowed out for a while (for whatever reason, probably commercial but I really don't know), the fans moved in and wrote loads of Gloranthan material. Then Greg came back and took up the reigns again, and everyone went with what Greg did because it was his world. The writers who found their material over-ruled got a bit fed up from time to time but it was just accepted that this was the risk that you took writing for a world you didn't own.
And I'm pretty sure Greg didn't feel that his hands were tied in any way by what other writers had produced.
I don't think that there would be very many fan-wars about what version of Golarion was the right one. Paizo's Golarion will always be the right one.
Richard
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fans can write golarion stuff through the community use license. It's only publishers who can't.
I like it the way it is - I'd worry the market would be flooded with golarion-lite products, based on a perceived demand.
Personally, I respect the effort involved in creating a campaign setting and that includes the ability to keep a tight rein on the creative input. Paizo do a good job of keeping golarion consistent, but even now errors creep through. Allowing development of their flavour material by third parties is almost necessarily going to result in more continuity errors (whether "officially sanctioned" or not).
I'm interested to see if Pathfinder rules with "unchained" line will become like Debian: a rolling edition. This might be something completely new.
|
|
A 1 level dip into ClericYou mean 3 level dip.
Prerequisite(s): Cha 13, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks, ability to cast 2nd-level divine spells; blessings, domains, or mystery class feature.Emphasis mine.
And even then it HAS to be cleric. Its a 4 level dip for oracles, inquisitors, and warpriests.
It's even better for all of them than it is for Paladins, since Paladins are much more MAD.???
Paladin divine grace (which does the same thing) comes in at 2nd level. So a bard could take a 2 level paladin dip and get the same bonus. Plus you'll have a better BAB, smite, etc. When all is said and done, a 2 level dip into paladin is better than a 3 level dip into cleric + splitting ability scores for spellcasting + a specific feat being used.
could be certain races all could qualify with inherent spell like abilities.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As one of the authors of Star Wars Saga, who also writes Pathfinder (and wrote for 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 D&D), I'll also note that one of the reasons SWSaga scaled differently was that we were emulating a different genre with different exemplars. As long as raising the dead is considered an ability appropriate for 9th-level characters and wish is available to 17th level characters (both fairly iconic elements of the game Pathfinder is built off of), 20 levels of Pathfinder characters are going to scale differently that 20 levels of Saga.
Altering those elements in the way it would take to be closer to Saga scaling would be a big step towards having a different game altogether.
my biggest problem with SAGA was using skills to attack with some things and BAB to attack with others.
that's why our group switched to a Savage Worlds star wars.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As one of the authors of Star Wars Saga, who also writes Pathfinder (and wrote for 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 D&D), I'll also note that one of the reasons SWSaga scaled differently was that we were emulating a different genre with different exemplars. As long as raising the dead is considered an ability appropriate for 9th-level characters and wish is available to 17th level characters (both fairly iconic elements of the game Pathfinder is built off of), 20 levels of Pathfinder characters are going to scale differently that 20 levels of Saga.
Altering those elements in the way it would take to be closer to Saga scaling would be a big step towards having a different game altogether.
Great job with SWSE BTW, we still play it and the big screw up as such in it was force powers being a skill check which leads to skill focus use the force. I wanted 4E to be more like Saga. I think SWSE mechanically was the best RPG WoTC managed to produce and it is probably better than Pathfinder as well.
Oh well we tried out 5E as I am the DM and it went down well with my players and more or less caused everyone to drop Pathfinder overnight. We were never really hard core Paizo loyalists myself being an exception of sorts due to Paizos tenure of Dragon and Dungeon. That was 7 years ago now though and by 2012 I was burned out on running 3.x rules systems.I went back to OSR gaming with clones and TSR era D&D with housefules.
We used Pathfinder mostly as house rules for 3.5 in a lot of ways as I did allow a lot of 3.5 stuff in the game just not the broken stuff. We bought a few APs, the 1st few ultimate type books the last of which was Ultimate Campaigns and an extra copy of the PFRPG and bestiary.
My players really enjoyed 5E to the extent some of them paid to pre order the 5E monster manual. There is to much bloat and numbers in Pathfinder and 3.x, 4E fixed that in the wrong way. I would like to see an RPG where the guts of 3.x is used like SWSE but you need to rip out the math and replace it wholesale. The races and classes could almost stay the way they are but the skills, feats and spells all need an overhaul along with the combat chapter. Some feats need to go (natural spell), others need to be merged into one feat (iron will, great fortitude, the dex one) and power attack may need to go as well or be capped. Two handed weapons and critical hits need to be fixed as well no more triple dipping on strength based two handed weapons (larger dice, str bonus +50%, power attack), no more +16/+11/+6/+1 type attacks (4 attacks at +16) things like that.
The basic d20 system is good, one can even keep BAB and fort/ref/will but the save numbers and spell DCs also need to be tweaked and by that I mean out right nerfed into the ground so damage spells start to matter or you can use debuffs to force through a save or suck spell. Scaling buff spells can go as well just make them a flat boost to whatever and do not let them stack.
I more or less winged last nights session of 5E which has not been this easy to do since 2E IMHO. I was not exactly a 5E enthusiast and there are some things in it I do not like (healing, 4Eisms) but the positives outweigh the negatives for me ATM. If I get sick of 5E probably look at playing OSR type games again and continue playing Pathfinder as a player but not as a DM and probably not as my primary D&D fix.
With PFRPG bloat I am even considering going back to BECMI. Dropped some bids last night on the red and blue boxed sets for the BE part and I could be keen on the C part as well. Right now less options=better as I have been really turned off the PF bloat which is more or less just as bad as 3.5 now.
When oyou start looking at BECMI again after a 20 year break and going hmmn that looks like fun something may have gone wrong.
The problem I have with PF is that I can't get anyone else to buy the game because people are too intimidated by the 15 hardcover books on the shelf and they don't feel like spending the time (and don't have the luxury) to achieve the system mastery that those of us who have had 10+ years to slowly digest the rules have had.
And if I go to someone else's game I find they've banned half the material I've bought anyways. That makes me feel like I've wasted my money. So that's no new people coming into the game plus me who is now reluctant to buy anything, regardless of how high quality it is, because it's unlikely that I'll ever get to use it.
Counterpoint to anyone afraid that because there are a lot of books people won't buy: GURPS.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People have been complaining about bloat since the APG. Pathfinder is a high-volume rule set and it will continue to appeal to people who want that, IMO (especially if the other RPGs eschew lots of rules expansion).
As far as I understand it, the CRB is selling more copies each quarter than ever before. So it's still growing and that growth has continued as the bloat has increased from its inception until now. There's presumably a point where that will turn, but as I understand it we're not there yet.