An interesting idea. Why don't you see if this thread can be moved over to the 4th ed. forum? It'd attract a lot more attention there than in the GameMastery forum, I'd think.
I don't think there is a soul that would be surprised if Paizo supported 4th Edition.
That being said, I do believe that a Revised 3.5 / 3.75 Edition produced by Paizo would be a certain hit.
The big question remains "will it be enough to warrant the effort?"
I believe it would be.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think you should have read the rest of Erik's post where he talks about the numerous problems with 3.paizo edition.
Besides, you don't even know what's in 4e. Assuming it doesn't suck, or that it doesn't suck any more than any new edition that you just don't want, why can't Paizo just produce products that are compatible with 4e and tap into the entire D&D fan base instead of just that segment that plays their version of the core rules? Unless 4e fails, there's really no point in trying to come up with an alternative.
Dear god, what I wouldn't give for a day on these boards without a tantrum thread about 4e or a discussion of politics...
|
Unless 4e fails, there's really no point in trying to come up with an alternative.
Dear god, what I wouldn't give for a day on these boards without a tantrum thread about 4e or a discussion of politics...
I'm wondering if diversification isn't a viable point, or option.
And you don't think this thread is a tantrum, do you? It's hardly the work of Tim"Trollman"Deraillure.
(edit) you're right, though. No more politics.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm wondering if diversification isn't a viable point, or option.And you don't think this thread is a tantrum, do you? It's hardly the work of Tim"Trollman"Deraillure.
It's the same old crap, where because someone feels something very strongly, they assume everyone else feels the same way. The posts are peppered with "in my opinion, it would work." Well, great, I'm sure I care about your opinion. But, Erik's the guy who actually gets paid by what works, I think I'll listen to him, thanks.
I don't think diversification in the core brand is desirable, but I don't have access to the data. I know that there are publishers of d20 offshoots and publishers of d20 compatible products (and some that do both). It's entirely possible that an alternate system could survive in the 4e world just as they do today (e.g., Iron Heroes). I'm not sure if that's the business model Paizo wants to follow, and even if they did, there's no reason why they couldn't publish such a line and continue to produce modules usable by all 4e players.
But, the thing that irritates me the most is that 4e isn't even out. I' d really like to know how we can conclude at this stage that it won't be worth playing or why we think Paizo would be capable of releasing a better version.
Same wine, slightly different bottle. Or perhaps it should be same whine, slightly different thread.
I gotta just jump in here and defend GVDammerung. He's been around these boards long enough and had plenty of meaningful and insightful things to say and discuss here that he deserves or at least has earned enough respect here to get a better reaction than comparing him to Tim the Troll or simply dismissing him as another 4E hater/whiner.
If you go back and re-read what he wrote, he never said that he hated or loved 4E, only that the timing was right for Paizo to pursue something different that they could probably be successful with and ended his discourse with a spirited little rallying cry.
I gotta say he has some intriguing points.
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
I would say - launch the Paizo Revolution! Market 3.75 on its merits but also as the “outsider” resisting the “abandonment” of D&D by 4e. Vive la Revolution! Vive la Paizo!
Perhaps the Paizo revolution is already underway, but it hasn't yet come into focus for everyone?
When can I subscribe?
It's the same old crap, where because someone feels something very strongly, they assume everyone else feels the same way.
...why can't Paizo just produce products that are compatible with 4e and tap into the entire D&D fan base instead of just that segment that plays their version of the core rules?
You're absolutely right.
I keep reading the same old crap in these threads.
I don't know about any one else... But I know I'm getting tired of it Sebastian.
|
|
Yeah, it's not like he was ranting saying that "WotC is money-grubbing, souless personificaiton of evil that is ruining D&D!" He was just speculating on a Paizo driven alternate-rules D&D kind of like Iron Heroes. If you want a rant, I could give you a rant, but I am tiring of it myself. Anyway, I've already started working on my own 3.75 version. I've pretty much got the fighter and the rogue nailed down. Next is the cleric. That will be a bit trickier.
I think you should have read the rest of Erik's post where he talks about the numerous problems with 3.paizo edition.
Although the original poster is right that if someone were to do something like this, the timing is now (or at least very soon), I agree that it's not really in the majority of people's best interest (both Paizo as well as the community because I believe the industry thrives with a more unified system - yes, I drank that Kool-Aid from Ryan Dancey years ago).
I was convinced that Paizo making their own edition is a bad idea - until you posted, however. 3.paizo edition. That just has a cool ring to it. ;)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You change your avatar too much.
I gotta just jump in here and defend GVDammerung. He's been around these boards long enough and had plenty of meaningful and insightful things to say and discuss here that he deserves or at least has earned enough respect here to get a better reaction than comparing him to Tim the Troll or simply dismissing him as another 4E hater/whiner.
You're right. He wasn't trolling and his post wasn't particularly partisan. I could have been more diplomatic in my response. That being said, I disagree that the post brought anything new to the discussion. It's still based around the assumption of 4e's failure, the business rationale is very weak, and it ignores the many caveats in Erik's original post. So, to the extent I was curt, it was because I didn't see anything of value in the post beyond "I don't like the idea of 4e, here's what I really want instead."
Fair enough. I suppose you're right that it's not a new thought or even a new spin on the sentiment, but it's probably the most thorough and intelligently put together post lobbying for a 3.paizo edition I've read so far. You lawyers and your wordy ways swaying people to your side and whatnot. Tricksey, you are. Tricksey.
|
|
I havent read the post that Erik wrote, and would like to have a link to that regardless heres my thoughts.
To be honest Im not to thrilled about 4e. Dont read this as a 4e bash, WotC has to do what they think is best and many of the changes theyre making in the game system seem interesting.
I do see this as a great oppoutunity for Paizo and if they decided that they were going to put out 3.P edition I would buy it in a heart beat. Why? Because I dont want a system overhall like 4e, just a tweak, Like what Iron Heroes or Arcana Evolved brought to the table.
It would be a liberating move for Paizo and would allow them to have a little more control over the companys publishing destiny. Every time a new edtion of the game comes out it seems to screw the little guys. WotC can handle the chnage because business needs, as well as the fact that they are the ones that control the info and timing forces these companies into a corner because the are not a part of WotC's big picture.For example the Paizo and Necro team up has been delayed as well.The AoW hardcover that Paizo fans want cant come out because WotC has thier hands tied.
Im not a market analyst, I dont have the figures and I might be wrong. But as a convert to Paizo, who in my opion has been a MAJOR trialblazer in the D&D market place they have consistantly raised the bar on what RPG products should look and feel like. I think that even if they couldnt get Monte Cook out of retirement they could still put out an excellent alternative to 4e, AND still be able to play in the 4e pond.
My thoughts take them for what their worth...
I havent read the post that Erik wrote, and would like to have a link to that...
(Many thanks to GentleGiant and Vic Wertz for having the discussion about linking to a specific post.)
You change your avatar too much.
You're right. He wasn't trolling and his post wasn't particularly partisan. I could have been more diplomatic in my response. That being said, I disagree that the post brought anything new to the discussion. It's still based around the assumption of 4e's failure, the business rationale is very weak, and it ignores the many caveats in Erik's original post. So, to the extent I was curt, it was because I didn't see anything of value in the post beyond "I don't like the idea of 4e, here's what I really want instead."I gotta just jump in here and defend GVDammerung. He's been around these boards long enough and had plenty of meaningful and insightful things to say and discuss here that he deserves or at least has earned enough respect here to get a better reaction than comparing him to Tim the Troll or simply dismissing him as another 4E hater/whiner.
I don't see where he's saying 4e will be a failure. I do see where he's implying that now COULD be an opportune time to make a break from WotC-controlled D&D.
It also only has to been successful on Paizo's scale of success, not WotC's.
And there are precedents for other companies creating their own RPGs rather than exist at the whim of WotC's edition or their support for OGL or a d20 license. Green Ronin developed True20, largely to ensure that WotC couldn't screw them. Mongoose relaunched RuneQuest (with Traveller in the works). I think it's perfectly feasible that Paizo could create their own version and have it be successful and profitable. The question is really whether it would be more profitable than supporting 4e.
And while we're at it, just as you're seeing continuous slams of 4e, just about every time I see you post, your posts seem dismissive of any opinion that deviates from "4e will be great". There's room for optimism, dread, and constructive criticism. If what I'm seeing here and at ENWorld is any indication, there are more people sitting on the fence than there are in the anti-4e / pro-4e camps.
These are forums where a hobby is discussed. If you can't state what you would like to see from that hobby here, where the hell should you discuss it? I could list a half-dozen things about D&D I don't like and how I wish they'd be changed. I know they're not likely going to be but I can still express that opinion.
Finally, is the OP's hypothesis really that "out there" given Erik's post, his "Tell Me Truly" thread, and the head of Necromancer Games saying it's being considered?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
And there are precedents for other companies creating their own RPGs rather than exist at the whim of WotC's edition or their support for OGL or a d20 license. Green Ronin developed True20, largely to ensure that WotC couldn't screw them. Mongoose relaunched RuneQuest (with Traveller in the works). I think it's perfectly feasible that Paizo could create their own version and have it be successful and profitable. The question is really whether it would be more profitable than supporting 4e.
Huh. And what do all of those new systems have in common?
They're not D&D.
Yeah, defining D&D is pretty tough, but as everyone has been gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands has been saying, there are certain flavor elements that are central. Guess what's not included in the SRD? Those flavor elements.
Even if you, and every single person that ever reads these boards believes in your heart of hearts that Paizo's new Wyverns and Walnuts is the spiritual heir of D&D there are a significant number of non-Paizo fans that do not see this company as having any more legitimacy or any more claim to be "the real D&D" than, say, Necromancer Gamers, or Monte Cook, or Green Ronin, or any other yahoo that wants to come out with a new roleplaying game based on the premise of "it's like D&D, but slighlty different" (which, by the way, has not been a very successful strategy in the history of the industry).
So yeah, Paizo could launch 3.paizo, but so what? It's not going to put the genie back in the bottle, it's not going to actually hurt 4e. At best, it'll attract the various malcontents who weren't going to buy 4e anyway. Whoopty-f*@*ing-doo. And if 4e is not an abysmal failure, those people are going to be relatively few and far between.
If 4e is decent or is (dare we say it?) good, then the possiblity of 3.paizo becomes even more slim. Now you've got to convince people that it's worth buying this new game (which is like D&D, but slightly different, a fun marketing message to try to sell in the first place) when they could just be playing D&D (and presumably, they purchased the core rules and being the tightwaded gamers they are, have no interest in purchasing additional rules).
Which is why, if you read all of Erik's post, you'll see that the scenario he outlines involves 4e failing and Paizo having no real choice except to do 3.paizo. If 4e is a success, it'd be a pretty wacky business strategy to move from your core business of supporting D&D (in its latest incarnation) to being yet another publisher of a game that's like D&D, but slightly different. In the meantime, Paizo's not going to bet the farm by playing chicken with 4e and trying to launch their end-all, be-all game which is like D&D, but slightly different.
Finally, is the OP's hypothesis really that "out there" given Erik's post, his "Tell Me Truly" thread, and the head of Necromancer Games saying it's being considered?
Well, if you read all of Eric's post, you'll see that his assumptions include 4e not doing so hot. I haven't seen the Necro games post, got a link? I've heard them jumping up and down saying they're going to publish the first 4e material as soon as humanly possible after the release, so I find it odd that they're also talking about just sticking to 3e indefinitely, but maybe my information is outdated.
Edit: And all this is not to say that at some point in the future, there may be a sufficient hold-out population that a 3.paizo makes sense. Plus, I'm sure some other gaming company will go ahead and try to make their own 3.alternative figuring this is a good time to make a break. Hackmaster lived in the shadow of 3e - I'm sure 3.master can live in the shadow of 4e. But really, it depends on how large that hold-out population is, and no one has that information at this time. In any event though, such a game will be D&D about as much as Hackmaster is D&D.
|
|
I don't think that Paizo would need to produce a version 3.75 to make things work. Actually, what you call it doesn't matter very much, but I do think trying to make a set of 'core books' wouldn't work. Besides violating the OGL and opening up a whole legal mess, the marketing challenges are formidable.
However, I do like the idea of Paizo continuing to support 3.5 (at least for a while longer). I don't know whether 4.0 will be any good or not. I've got my subscription through the first two Pathfinders. Will I continue my subscription if they switch to 4.0? I don't know. I probably will not. The only reason I would is that I feel that the quality of their product is sufficiently high that I can enjoy it for my 3.5 games.
Regardless of the mechanical quality (or suckitude) of 4.0, I know that I don't need to upgrade. I don't feel like spending a lot of cash on a game that I think is still 'fresh'. Most of the things I imagine I could buy for 4th edition will be rehashed products I own. Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe I'm not.
I like the idea of Paizo using the 3.5 set through the first 3 Pathfinder sets. That does give them a chance to 'test the waters' of the viability of 3.5 - which could be more profitable than supporting 4.0
If they, like me, can take their time in making a decision, they very well may end up in a stronger position in the beginning of 2009.
Nothing wrong with that.
|
As previously mentioned, other companies have already released 3.75 - Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved / Iron Heroes for example, True20 and Castles & Crusades also come to mind.
And what do all of those new systems have in common? They're not D&D. "it's like D&D, but slighlty different".
I don't think that Paizo would need to produce a version 3.75 to make things work. However, I do like the idea of Paizo continuing to support 3.5 (at least for a while longer).
As good as some of these d20 variants are, what we don't need at this point in the 3.5 Edition life cycle, particularly with 4th Edition breathing down it's neck, is another variant d20 system to further fragment the 3.5 audience. In 12 months time, 3.5 Edition players will require continued support for the core, shared d20 experience that we're all familiar with.
The idea is to support players with current 3.5 Edition rulebooks, not force them to upgrade to 3.75 versions of these books. Though, someone should keep the 3.5 Edition D20 SRD in print to keep players on the same page.
If a 3.75 Edition were to come about, it would have a far greater chance of success if supported by a consortium of respected d20 publishers, as suggested by GVDammerung, creating an industry standard that everyone could agree upon, moving forward.
Though I don't advocate a new 3.75 Edition, there is still plenty of opportunity for releasing additional soucebooks of the kind WotC were publishing monthly. Certainly, new concepts could be explored in their own books, but don't mess with the core.
Regardless of the mechanical quality of 4.0, I know that I don't need to upgrade. I don't feel like spending a lot of cash on a game that I think is still 'fresh'.
Personaly, I don't agree with any 4th Edition doom prophecies. The more I hear about 4Ed, the more I'm intrigued, and I'm sure I will be playing it. But neither do I think 3rd Edition is dead. I see D&D "branching", rather than being "replaced" by the new edition.
I think 3rd Edition is in a stronger position now than 2nd Edition was in it's day. It is a more consistent ruleset; there is a wealth of published material; and the d20/OGL licences have formed an industry of support around the game. If handled correctly, 3rd Edition is positioned to continue alongside 4th Edition as any other game system might.
...And if 4e is not an abysmal failure, those people are going to be relatively few and far between.
I don't think you have it right Sebastian.
Every edition of D&D has had a larger, and larger group of people who didn't convert. And that is even if you do not count the previous edition non-converters.
At least, if my Tri-State slice of the hobby is any indication. And if it is, the number roughly doubles every Edition.
There is going to be an even larger group of people that won't convert to 4th Edition than those that didn't convert from 2nd Edition, no matter how much 4th Edition may be nipples and beer.
And before you start you proselytizing again... I have not said anything about 4th Edition, or even WoTC, hurting for that loss.
And as long as I am on the subject, I hold out hope that the number of new players does exceed the number of non-converters - just for the sake of the hobby. But I am too much of a Jaded, Cynical, Sonovab@+&! to expect it to be so.
no matter how much 4th Edition may be nipples and beer.Nipples & Beer?
ok, that clinches it. I'm soooo converting to 4e now.
LoL - nothing like settling down to the real priorities in life. ^_^
|
|
Well now that Ive read Eriks post I can comment a little further.
First off Id like to preface this with the fact that while I think 4e is going to have some interesting ideas and innovations and will probably be a succssful new iteration of the d&d game. That said Im still not planning on switching over. I am more or less content with the 3.5 system despite minor problems and other issues I might have with it.I also have enough material that I could play for a long time and by the time Im through with it all 5e ( or 4.5 at least)will probably be on the scene!
However, what I read from this post was that if there was going to be a 3.P edition a lot of "If's" and other hypothetical situations would have to occur first.Many of which I dont see happening.One thing that disturbed me when reading this post was Erik's comments about how WotC has been handling providing the major 3rd party publishers with info required to make good business decisions in the future.At first I thought that WotC was just disconected to there fan base, now it appears to me that they are disconected to the very people who are supposed to help invigorate and support their games rules.
Regardless, I would like to see Paizo make the choices that will benifit them the most as a business. Even if this choice is 4e and thus excludes me from future purchases. If they decided that a 3.P edition was how they were going to proceed then I would certainly purchase it.I think at this point the market is already fractured and theres nothing that can stop that.
Nothing as drastic as a whole new variant game system should be necessary here.
As Erik Mona and others have said, the biggest problems with 4e seem to be in the "fluff" department rather than the actual game mechanics. The good thing here is that fluff is almost all tied to the default D&D setting, and can be fairly easily corrected by simply adopting setting-specific variant rules.
This has been done in the past, even by TSR/WotC itself. The Dragonlance setting had a lot of variant rules (no halflings, no orcs, no thieves, largely powerless clerics, mages formally grouped by alignment, etc.) Dark Sun went even further afield, while still being based in the core D&D rules, and so did Ravenloft.
Most of the objections to 4e and its killing of "sacred cows" can be fixed by simply resurrecting those cows as setting-specific variant rules.
Example: if we don't like the new succubus as a devil, simply say that those don't exist in the world of Golarion...succubi here are demons. Generate a stat block and description of the succubus as a demon, and put it in the book as a setting-specific variant monster.
Don't like eladrin as a core PC race? Put 'em back on the outer planes where they belong, and decree that Golarion elves are just like 3.5 elves. That's really no different than Dragonlance did, axing the halflings and inserting kender in their place.
"WotC numbers + Paizo words = our D&D" seems to be a good formula. And even some of the numbers might be up for debate.
What Paizo should do is wait for 4e to come out, decide which rules to keep and which to change, and then come out with a nice big hardcover world setting book with all that stuff in it.
|
|
On the cusp of 3.5 e., I've seen other companies hit the horse latitudes of book production--titles having to be held back and rereleased after the rules change. Assuming that 4e. is the be all and end all of fun gaming, it is of great utility for a smaller company to be able to escape the doldrums left in the wake of a rules update announcement.
Anecdotal not scientific,...I've noticed last week at the game store's new stuff shelf maybe 2 WOTC books, and numerous other game system books represented. This time around, I see companies that were stunned into relative inaction during the 3.5 switch not only represented, but heavily populating the shelf.
I don't have the numbers, all I know is it's bad common sense to put all of your apples in one basket, and especially if someone who doesn't have your best interests at heart owns the apple tree.
That is what I mean by diversification. I'd argue vehemently against anybody putting 100% of their apples in the 4e. basket if they themselves were in it for the long haul.
Although the original poster is right that if someone were to do something like this, the timing is now (or at least very soon), I agree that it's not really in the majority of people's best interest (both Paizo as well as the community because I believe the industry thrives with a more unified system - yes, I drank that Kool-Aid from Ryan Dancey years ago).
Except that the biggest problem with this whole "THE TIME IS NOW FOR PAIZO TO GRAB THE REIGNS!" is that it's completely glossing over the realities of publishing. If the "time is now" that actually means the "time" was six months to a year ago.
If Paizo has done no work on such a project, that means that the only way they'd have any hope of putting out a 3.Paizo before 4e hits the shelves is by dumping their entire production schedule between now and then, and focusing solely on putting out a book for the new system. And even then, they'll be lucky if they can get it on shelves after but relatively close to the release of 4e, which doesn't do them any good.
Gaming books don't take zero time to create, design and produce. I know the game is filled with magic, but this world has no magic publishing and funding fairies to make books happen.
However cool it would or wouldn't be for Paizo to put out a 3.straighttrippin edition of D&D that kicks 4e's a$$ and allows Paizo to totally pwnz0r WotC 4eVaH! It's. Not. Happening. Total pipe dream.
To my eyes, should Paizo decide that conversion to 4th edition would not be a beneficial change (by whatever measures), the only way to go beyond lingering with the 3rd edition crowd is to fully embrace and organize through the 3rd edition SRD.
To that end, if other companies, such as the Original Poster mentioned, and Paizo were to agree to continue to publish to the 3rd edition SRD, en masse, and publicize jointly about this, it could seal in the people who favor 3rd edition, and perhaps even garner more support.
Publishing openly with each other, able to use each other's ideas to improve all the products, would enrich all of them. And essentially, 4th edition would be out of luck, having to convert any material over to a wholly different system, assuming *that* could even be allowed given it would be a separate open gaming license.
I'm afraid I haven't communicated this very well today, but essentially if a group of 3rd edition publishers decided to stick it out, and worked together, it could actually be a vast improvement since the largest other publisher of 3rd edition material is exiting the market.
You said, quite nicely, the way I have been feeling about all of this hand wringing about 4e. Thank you.
Nothing as drastic as a whole new variant game system should be necessary here.
As Erik Mona and others have said, the biggest problems with 4e seem to be in the "fluff" department rather than the actual game mechanics. The good thing here is that fluff is almost all tied to the default D&D setting, and can be fairly easily corrected by simply adopting setting-specific variant rules.
This has been done in the past, even by TSR/WotC itself. The Dragonlance setting had a lot of variant rules (no halflings, no orcs, no thieves, largely powerless clerics, mages formally grouped by alignment, etc.) Dark Sun went even further afield, while still being based in the core D&D rules, and so did Ravenloft.
Most of the objections to 4e and its killing of "sacred cows" can be fixed by simply resurrecting those cows as setting-specific variant rules.
Example: if we don't like the new succubus as a devil, simply say that those don't exist in the world of Golarion...succubi here are demons. Generate a stat block and description of the succubus as a demon, and put it in the book as a setting-specific variant monster.
Don't like eladrin as a core PC race? Put 'em back on the outer planes where they belong, and decree that Golarion elves are just like 3.5 elves. That's really no different than Dragonlance did, axing the halflings and inserting kender in their place.
"WotC numbers + Paizo words = our D&D" seems to be a good formula. And even some of the numbers might be up for debate.
What Paizo should do is wait for 4e to come out, decide which rules to keep and which to change, and then come out with a nice big hardcover world setting book with all that stuff in it.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
4E is the Debil... and as a Demon I'm "hellbent" on opposing them by my very nature.
That being said, I would completely support Paizo as they continue to support 3.5 gaming. After I pick up the Rules Compendium I'm seriously going to be shifting my money to Gamemastery and Pathfinder because they are 3.5. I'll look at 4E when it comes out and my even steal an idea, but my 10 players have firmly told me they don't want to convert to 4E. We're all huge Planescape and FR fans and the butchering of those settings by the new edition have sealed our decisions.
I would be 3.Paizo charter member.
-Kid Vrock
|
|
I don't think there is a soul that would be surprised if Paizo supported 4th Edition.
That being said, I do believe that a Revised 3.5 / 3.75 Edition produced by Paizo would be a certain hit.
The big question remains "will it be enough to warrant the effort?"
I believe it would be.
Actually, I suspect Paizo is already one of those 3rd party publishers lining up for prerelease rules so that they can convert in a timely manner. Paizo has maintained good and positive relations and likely is not in a position to speak of what it is pursuing .. or may be pursuing.
I must admit that I was one of those persons adverse to 4e at the outset. But I also must admit that I'm coming around. Not with the same cash-frenzy mode I took with 3e, but I like the new Star Wars rules and hope to see much of that translate to 4e. It's a good game model.
Eveloution is part of life, even in a fantasy world. WoTC is going to convert to a 4e and in some time in the not so distant future we will be discussing about the advatages of a 5e. My only hope is that companies like Paizo will continue to support 3.5 for awhile even after 4e is in full swing. With every major advancement there will be customers who convert immediatly to have the newest and greatest, and others who will hold out for as long as possible.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It's fun to speculate:
Another factor might be the ‘chain reaction’ of companies not going to 4.0
Lets say the OGL is late and/or overly restrictive. Paizo or whomever makes ‘Players Handbook Unbound’ which is the 3.5 rules with some house fixes or 3rd party content. Pathfinder AP 3 is put out with Unbound as the default rule set. Depending on sales, Pathfinder 4 might be Unbound, or 4.0, or both, depending on the difficulty of converting
Goodman Games, intrigued by this, puts out an ‘Unbound’ format module and sees how it sells. They decide, based on sales, and the restrictive OGL, to support ‘Unbound’ too.
Necromancer releases 4.0 pathfinder conversion docs, either on their website, or as a single tome when the AP is complete. Necromancer becomes the 4.0 ‘clearing house’ for conversions, as well as their own products.
Green Ronin decided to produce an ‘Unbound’ sourcebook, in the style of their True 20/3.5 books they’ve done for Freeport.
The Faithful and Forsaken then stick with 3.5/Unbound and start running events at conventions. The DMs can not only point to Paizo ‘Unbound’ but also to the new products coming out from 3rd party providers, and all the previously existing material that’s a snap to convert…
It’s a pipe dream, true, but I know I’ll be teaching kids 3.x until my books fail a save vs disinitgrate. It also would force Wizards of the Hasbro to adapt or assimilate the competition to shut them up. I know I’ll continue to support 3.x vendors because I don’t want to bother with a new system.
I just bought the rules compendium and I am good to go for 3.5 for another year or two. I do not like the fluff direction of 4e. Tieflings and warlocks as core players, changing existing monsters, the Eberon as core setting. (they claim its FR but first they have to change it to be like Eberon)Changing or removing the alignment structure. 4e is a new game.
Paizo has production value that outshines anything else on the market.
Their setting is classic D&D without the "smirk on the face" attitude of Goodman games (gods bless em they have an audience to appeal to and are doing a fine job, just not my style) If Paizo and necromancer commit to the current rule system I will stick by them and let 4e sit on the shelf.
In another thread (Eric Mona) mused about perhaps even producing a Paizo “3.75 edition” set of rules if such a hypothetical third Pathfinder adventure path were well enough received. I would like to suggest that Paizo do just this.
DO IT! I've been hoping Paizo would do this for a while. I do not like what I've seen of 4th edition, have no intention of playing it, and would enthusiastically support Paizo's efforts to fix what doesn't work in 3.5 without overhauling the entire game.
Sadly, if Paizo moves to 4th edition I'll probably end my Pathfinder subscription.
I really like a lot of the ideas on this thread.
I personally haven't supported WOTC product for quite some time. The last thing I really purchased from them were some Ebberon supplements.
I heavily support Paizo and Malhavoc because I've felt there is a real passion from these companies to make gaming great and fun. A lot of the other companies listed by others are great too, no doubt, they should definitely be included as well.
It's almost as if what WOTC does, forces a lot of the other companies to change their ways. OGL was great when it happened, but over time, it can become too much of a crutch.
I'm all for a 3.Paizo Edition, and I think there are a lot of people ready to put money down for a preorder sight unseen.
|
|
ourth, can Monte Cook be persuaded to lend his name and his knack for the 3x rules to a 3.75 edition? Monte Cook has a reputation every bit as formidable and positive as Paizo, Necromancer Games and Goodman Games. He could also significantly speed along the development of the 3.75 rules to meet an August 2009 release date. While Monte Cook has said goodbye to game developing, a 3.75 rules set, particularly partnered with Paizo and Necromancer Games, and perhaps Goodman Games as well, might be the sort of thing to see him come out of “retirement” for one more go around. That he knows Eric Mona and is on friendly terms with him can only help.
OH GOD. You just spelled out my ultimate phantasm here, I think.
Monte is a good web friend and I seriously don't think he'd be getting out of his "retirement" without a very good reason/opportunity to do so, but man... MAN! To work on something like this? Like a Arcana Unearthed 2: Pathfinder? That would be AWESOME!
One can always dream, right?
|
|
ourth, can Monte Cook be persuaded to lend his name and his knack for the 3x rules to a 3.75 edition? Monte Cook has a reputation every bit as formidable and positive as Paizo, Necromancer Games and Goodman Games. He could also significantly speed along the development of the 3.75 rules to meet an August 2009 release date. While Monte Cook has said goodbye to game developing, a 3.75 rules set, particularly partnered with Paizo and Necromancer Games, and perhaps Goodman Games as well, might be the sort of thing to see him come out of “retirement” for one more go around. That he knows Eric Mona and is on friendly terms with him can only help.OH GOD. You just spelled out my ultimate phantasm here, I think.
Monte is a good web friend and I seriously don't think he'd be getting out of his "retirement" without a very good reason/opportunity to do so, but man... MAN! To work on something like this? Like a Arcana Unearthed 2: Pathfinder? That would be AWESOME!
One can always dream, right?
I am not a fan of this idea.
There are some interesting ideas in Monte's AU/ AE, but it strays too far from D&D for my taste, and this brings up back to the discussion above about how true to D&D any 3.paizo had to be/ *can* be...In a different thread people mentioned a joined effort of many different 3rd party companies like Green Ronin (already have their own system True20), Necromancer, Paizo and others to bring out a 3.x version staying true to the current rule set.
This sounds more promissing to me, but even then there stays Sebastian's question whether that rule set would be able to attract sufficiently many people in order to call it more than a niche like Hackmaster...
|
|
I am not a fan of this idea.
There are some interesting ideas in Monte's AU/ AE, but it strays too far from D&D for my taste, and this brings up back to the discussion above about how true to D&D any 3.paizo had to be/ *can* be...In a different thread people mentioned a joined effort of many different 3rd party companies like Green Ronin (already have their own system True20), Necromancer, Paizo and others to bring out a 3.x version staying true to the current rule set.
This sounds more promissing to me, but even then there stays Sebastian's question whether that rule set would be able to attract sufficiently many people in order to call it more than a niche like Hackmaster...
Thanks for your input, man! We all need to hear all sides of the story, even if we don't personally agree, right? For Paizo's sake, I mean.
I think AU is D&D in essence, because it's still geared towards "dungeons" and "dragons", but with a different feel to it. The dressing changes, the game doesn't. It's also completely compatible with the core rules but for a few very precise and very easily house-ruled issues.
If that means something to you, I can easily imagine a Pathfinder PHB AU-style with a dressing much closer to the core rules, but still complementing them in new and imaginative ways.
I see you don't share that opinion and that's perfectly fine! I think we all need to get a clear picture on how we all stand on the possibilities open to Paizo.
I just have one more book to get from Wizards and then it looks like I might be officially done with them. From the message boards to the one Dungeon Survival book it looks like elements I find enjoyable will be stripped from the game. In its core they will be supporting the "classic" adventuring party of a fighter, a cleric, a rogue and a wizard with the other classes including the ranger with his small selection of spells that I love so much will be going by the wayside. I heard a rumor that they may be doing SpellJammer. If they have rules for keeping ranger players like me on board, especially if they touch on Mystara enough for me to have a lupin ranger the way I want him, I will be on board with 4E. But I must have the elements that make my gaming experience fun. Otherwise, it's not worth my money.