maliszew's page

Maybe I missed this and, if so, I apologize: what exactly is the purpose of the Pathfinder RPG? Is it intended to be a set of fantasy roleplaying rules, based on the v.3.5 SRD, for gaming in Golarion or is it intended to be a new baseline set of fantasy roleplaying rules for playing in any setting?

I ask because I think the Pathfinder RPG might limit its audience if it looks too much like a mere adjunct to the Pathfinder adventure paths. That's not to say I don't think there should be Golarion flavor in the rulebook, but I'd recommend that it be more like the "Greyhawk" flavor of core v.3.5, with Golarion's deities being used as examples and so on. I think it'd be wise to draw a connection between the Golarion setting and the Pathfinder RPG. However, there may well be people who are interested in a "v.3.75" game who have no interest in Golarion and, since Paizo is likely the only company pursuing such an endeavor, I think it'd be smart to write the rulebook with this in mind.

But maybe this isn't Paizo's intention at all; I don't know. I think it'd be helpful if this question were answered, because it does have an impact on how many elements of the rules and their presentation play out.

Thanks.

I don't want to spoil anyone's fun and, by and large, I think the comments we're seeing on the Alpha Release aren't in this vein, but I feel compelled to say, both to Paizo and to my fellow enthusiasts for this project: let's remember what this project's goal are.

The Pathfinder RPG is intended to be a natural evolution of v.3.5 that corrects its most clear and problematic flaws while placing a premium on backward compatibility. Consequently, some things that you or I may not like about v.3.5 -- iterative attacks, for example -- probably can't be changed, or at least can't be changed with ease without calling into question the stated intentions for the new game.

I know everyone excited by this announcement; I know I am. But we have to remain focused on the immediate project, which is correcting the universally acknowledged inadequacies of v.3.5 without creating a new game that is so different from it that the vast library of D&D and D20 books produced over the last eight years are completely worthless.

My apologies for the bucket of cold water, but I think it needs to be said.

Now, on with the fun!

I touched on this in another thread, but I think it's worth discussing separately.

When 3E was released and the OGL and D20 STL were introduced, it was, without question, a huge boon for the gaming industry. WotC was willingly and freely giving other companies access to the rules and even lots of the IP of Dungeons & Dragons, making it possible for the first time for third parties to create and sell products that were explicitly derived from and/or connected to the most popular RPG of all time. Not only did this help many new companies get started and make profits, it also helped support 3E and ensure that the new edition took hold and flourished.

The ease with which the OGL/D20 STL could be used and the (seemingly) easy money of the early days led to a glut of bad product that damaged the D20 brand to an extent (how much is a matter of debate). But, even with that, there's no denying that the OGL had been a success, an amazing gift that allowed previously non-existent companies to arise and prosper. Though many D20 companies died, not all of them did and there are at least a few -- Paizo, for example -- still existing who owe their very existence to the Open Gaming movement.

This was a blessing.

But then came v.3.5, which was unexpected and unwanted and, from what I have gathered, it was this revision that mortally wounded an already-hurting D20 market. Many companies dropped D20 support as a result; many more died entirely -- all because WotC made a decision that was good for its business and without concern for how it'd affect third party publishers (I should make it clear I'm not attributing malice or even negligence to WotC. I am simply saying that its rational business decision was almost certainly made without taking D20 publishers into account and, frankly, there's no reason why it should have been otherwise).

Therein lies a curse. WotC will do what WotC will do for their own reasons and no one else's. It seems to me that, while the OGL gives unprecedented access to a piece (albeit a small one) of the D&D pie, it comes with a steep price, namely being at the mercy of WotC's future decisions, whatever they may be. There is no way for a third party publisher to plan for the springing of a new revision, edition, or other major change on the gaming public. That means that, in the event such a thing occurs, they're left scrambling. Just look at Paizo now and you'll see a good example of what I mean. The OGL binds a third party's fate to that of WotC's unpredictable future decisions and that limits the ability of a third party to plan for its own future.

The conclusion I draw from this is that, unless a company wishes to forever remain beholden to WotC's decisions, it is in their best interests to use the OGL to find their own path and forge their own destiny. Both Green Ronin and Mongoose provide examples of companies that have created their own games and IPs from the D20 base and run with them, expanding and developing the original systems (and even developing new, non-D20 systems), in the process making themselves "edition proof." You see no fretting or angst at companies like this about the advent of 4E. They can make their decisions based on their own assessment of the market and their customers, not WotC's.

I'd like to see Paizo survive and prosper. Whether they go 4E or not, I'd like to encourage them to think of the currently unimaginable future when 5E or whatever is on the horizon. Do they want to be in the same position they are today, worrying about which way to jump and which fans they may or may not lose by doing so? I wouldn't think so, which is why I hope they'll see the OGL for what it really is: a gift with a large hidden price tag.

While other specifics are still publicly unknown at this point, it's now been revealed that there will be no equivalent to 3E's D20 System Trademark License for 4E. What this means is that, while third parties will still be able to use the 4E rules (or rather, that portion of the rules that makes it into the new SRD), there will be no legal way to point out its relationship to D&D except by circumlocutions like "compatible with the world's most popular fantasy roleplaying game" or something. Gone are the days of a well-known logo or the phrase "Requires the Use of the Dungeons & Dragons Third Edition Core Books Published by Wizards of the Coast."

This move doesn't surprise me in the least. I think the D20 STL (as opposed to the OGL) proved to be a big headache for WotC, between having to police third parties for violation of its terms (remember Fast Forward Entertainment?) or offending delicate sensibilities with content (remember the Valar Project?), not to mention the tons of sub-par drek churned out at prodigious rates that glutted the market and made D20 a dirty word with distributors and retailers alike. By dropping it, they no longer have to worry about this sort of thing.

My paranoid suspicion is that this is one step toward making D&D's rules closed in the future. Indeed, I remain convinced, despite claims to the contrary by various people, that WotC is no longer committed to Open Gaming as a concept. Rather, they feel they have to make 4E open so as to encourage as many third parties -- especially big fish -- to come along for the ride with 4E. If 4E had been closed, there'd have been an irresistible call to stick with and further develop v.3.5, which would have encouraged "forking" in the market, as fans of this third party and that one stayed with their favorite publishers rather than continued with WotC. By keeping 4E open, WotC avoids this and deprived the 3.5E rules kernel of creative oxygen and effectively kills it off.

It'll be interesting to see how this evolves. Without a D20 STL this time around, only the biggest third party publishers with solid followings will see much benefit from converting to 4E. Middle rung companies will get left in the cold, with no easy way to identify their compatibility with the new edition. This news makes the question of moving to 4E or not a slightly different equation than before.