Hey guys long time lurker, recently decided to shake my head and see what spare change fell out.
Well each day I scrabble over the WoTC website and ENworld, scrounging up each little tidbit of 4th edition dangled in front of our noses. And every day, I die a little more inside. Sure there's stuff I like, things that seem new and innovative (Arcane Foci -> staves/wands/orbs come to mind), but I'd say 8 times out of 10 I sigh and wonder who's running the ship over there.
What Paizo has done with 3rd edition is frankly amazing. Quality products, fantastic creativity, and top quality merchandice, and all at an affordable price. That can't be easy to do, and I tip my hat to you and your team. Now I cross my fingers and wait with baited breath to see what you guys an gals do with 4th edition. Whatever you guys do with the next gen DnD, whether 3.5, 4.0, 3.75, 5.0 or something totally unprecedented, I sure will be the best game available out there.
So here's hoping for the best
--The Osquip--
P.S. If you guys havent heard it, Eric Mona was revcently a guest speaker over on Green Ronin's podcasts. You can find it on the Green Ronin site, its pretty interesting.
I'm still hoping Paizo will stick to 3,5. I am fairly certain that more people will continue to play 3,5 thant 2nd edition (when that jump was made), and I find it strange if there isn't a market for 3,5, even after 4.0.
|
I'm still hoping Paizo will stick to 3,5. I am fairly certain that more people will continue to play 3,5 thant 2nd edition (when that jump was made), and I find it strange if there isn't a market for 3,5, even after 4.0.
There is a market for 3.5 but that market is to small for Paizo to flourish.
Even the 3.75 idea they are talking about with necromancer will only be a stopgap until they are able change to 4th.On the other hand, nobody knows for sure if 4th will be the Mother of all roleplaying games and if it will be the success WoC needs for their flagging sales. We do not know how many Players will go 4th and how many will stick with 3x (though all are faily certain that the majority will go 4th -no pun intended).
We do not know yet how the OGL will be handled.
I am painfully aware that no publishers in their right mind will opt not to change to 4th edition. But just think about it. If everyone and their grandmother switches to 4th edition, and only _one_ publisher stays with 3,5... don't you guys really think that that _one_ publisher has a chance of success? They have nobody to compete with (save for eBay). Ah.. well.. thank Paizo I still have a lot of APs and other modules to keep the dice rolling.
It would be commercial suicide to stick with 3.5 for any great length of time after 4E comes out.
Backwards compatability is always something to consider. A sidebar included in most adventures published by Paizo already includes 'Scaling the Adventure'. I realize that this may not be a feasible strategy, but it would go a long way towards making sure that those who don't want to transition to 4th edition aren't completely left behind should Paizo make the jump as well.
I also don't think Paizo not going over to 4th would be commercial suicide. All you have to do is look around the various messageboards and you can see a great deal of support for 3.x around. Is it enough to warrant staying with the current edition, or a composite 3.75 amalgam? I don't know. I'm afraid I don't have that kind of time to check market exposure or any of the other factors involved. Certainly not enough to make a blanket statement of that sort.
I personally will reserve judgement on 4th Edition and whether I will play it or not. Certain things about it I might just adapt to 3.5/3.75, such as a streamlining of skills. I don't see much need, but the average players I know have a hard time keeping track of all the skills. So a streamlining ala SW: Saga might be a good idea. The idea of racial levels is really nothing new, except perhaps introducing them for some of the more 'core' races, essentially expanding on the 'Racial Paragon' classes from UA is what it sounds like to me.
I will say this for me though. To Erik Mona and all of the Staff of Paizo. I will be staying right here, one way or another. Paizo has struck me as being the only force for the consumer (or in this case the Gamer) in D&D for a very long time. I don't think there has been a company out there involved with D&D that has really cared much for what we want since Gary Gygax left/exiled from TSR. You all here seem to me to have a vision. Regardless of what happens with the editions, I will follow Paizo most likely because I know if I follow Erik and Co. then I will find good content, fixes to problems and adventures of the sort I enjoy. Keep up the good work. Sorry for the semi-on/off topic rant.
|
I don't think staying with 3.5 for a time is a 'deathknell' 4.0 might catch on, and it might not. Many people are waiting to see if it will before deciding for themselves.
Paizo can also take a wait and see approach. There are a lot of possibilities for the future. Some I like better than others. But I don't really care much for an immediate switch to 4.0.
I'm tempted to stay with Paizo regardless, but I would certainly consider leaving with a swtich to 4.0. I personally plan on hitting the next edition instead..... Could be just five years away.
That is to some degree my way of thinking as well. WotC may be saying there won't be a 4.5 or 5th edition coming soon, but they are not really telling us anything anyway, besides, do we really think the people telling us one thing today there will be the same people working on the next edition?
Highly Unlikely.
And if everyone just blindly stumbles into 4th edition without a single question as to why, what encouragement have we given WotC to not do this to us again? If sales are high for 4th edition, and by high I mean really high/good revenue compared to production cost (a commercial success as it were), then I think we will pretty much set ourselves up for either new editions, or for scaling subscription costs.
One things about being part of D&D Insider that some of you might not have thought about, think about MMORPGs. How often, after you have already been playing and have time and life invested in such a game, do they simply increase the cost one month? Happened to me plently of times, thats why I quit them. Once you are used to using the newer 4th edition elements, such as the Online Virtual Gaming Table and such, you will no longer have a local gaming group. You might finally find a group online that you play with regularly and without having a slew of people over (some spouses prefer this option, I'm sure). Once you are in that situation, it'll be extremely hard to extricate yourself. Time, fun, investment.
WotC is going to get people hooked, just like MMORPers are, with a similar cost and investment of time and resources. That is what I really don't like about 4th Edition. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a great business model from a company standpoint. I also think it is underhanded and is trying to get gamers (who often MMO) into another little expense. that they can justify.
I wish someone like Paizo - even though they are likely to switch to 4e - would make 3.5 stats available via download so that those of us who wish to stay with 3.5 would be able to continue to buy (and get use out of) the Paizo adventures.
Heck, while I'd obviously prefer it for free, I'd be willing to pay $1 for a simple .pdf text document with those stats.
I do understand why a lot of people feel frustrated and insulted. I just don't seem too worried about 4e as long as they continue the OGL. Assuming SWSE is a big indicator of the system, I think I'll like the system. It's the fluff changes and handling of it that is annoying to me. Because of companies like Paizo and other independents (who actually listen and respond to their fans and customers), I think everything will eventually work out alright. I know the Paizo staff is waiting to see the actual system before making a decision, but I can't imagine that they won't eventually go 4e. I'll buy the core 4e books I'm sure and rely on Paizo and others to retain the feel of old school DnD. Paizo has strengthened my faith in a short amount of time, I just know they will do right by us.
... Assuming SWSE is a big indicator of the system, I think I'll like the system. It's the fluff changes and handling of it that is annoying to me. ...
I feel exactly the same way.
I like SWSE and Tomb of Battle-style mechanics. I like most of what we have seen (albeit its been very little) in the way of mechanics and new concepts.
I even like most of the fluff. I think it would make an interesting world.
However, I hate the way that this new fluff is being ret-conned onto the existing campaign settings. (See Points of Light and Forgotten Realms for example) If they remake all the campaign settings to the same model with this new fluff, is the only difference between FR and Eberron going to be replacing the Zhents with the Emerald Claw?
But ultimately that new fluff doesn't matter. If I hate it (as it looks right now) I just won't buy an WotC campaign books, and I'll continue to run the FR and Eberron I know and like now, just updated myself to the new rules. (Or to be honest, I might just use someone else's fan conversion to save time)
For campaign settings, I think I'll be more than satisfied if I stick with Golarion. Unless they make everyone conform to Points of Light, the new Cosmology, etc for the 4.0 OGL ;-)
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
For those of you who "die a little inside" every time WotC posts a 4e preview, what are you worried about losing with the new edition?
We're still building our world and are largely ignorant of WotC's plans beyond what's been posted online. The world we build will be one that would work just great with 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition, and my hope is that it will also work great with 4.0.
So what worries you? My sense is that the smart move is to convert to 4.0 but to keep alive certain assumptions and traditions that WotC seems to be dumping. We can take the elements of 3.5 that we like and retain them, pretty much whatever Wizards of the Coast decides to do.
But I need to know what worries you guys about 4.0 and what we can do to retain you even if we do make the switch.
Thanks,
Erik
Thanks Erik,
Your responsive post proves my point and that's why I'm not worried. Golarion rocks!
I am but one voice, Erik and I have already explained my position. Stay with 3.5 or transition to 4.0 makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever. I am converting 3.5 to Hero and I can say with all confidence that 4.0 will be just as easy to convert.
I'm here for the fluff.
erik,
it would be alot of work, but if you published in 4.0, but had downloads of 3.5 stat blocks (unless the chang is not significant, like 3.0 to 3.5). that would be great.
im not afraid of 4.0. i look forward to the change. my group is a group that casts every spell in a couple of fights, then has to rest. and they refuse to accept the "rest on the run" alternate rule that was presented in dungeon.
im looking forward to seeing the 8 hours of work that all the character classes will be able to preform.
im also looking forward to having more choice for running combats. mixing and matching monsters like i used to do with my kid's "garanimales" clothes
|
But I need to know what worries you guys about 4.0 and what we can do to retain you even if we do make the switch.
Thanks,
Erik
In a single word: Tradition.
The Tradition of D&D is being thrown out. Some erroneously call tradition "sacred cows" which in and of itself is a disparaging slap in the face of tradition.
I think most of us are quite reasonable with a rules tweak here and a rules tweak there. We are ok with new settings and new cosmologies. We are even ok with Succubi as Devils.
But you do all of these things, all at once, and we wonder why we don't recognize the result. We are dieing a little because every release seems to be taking the game AWAY from its traditions, not reinforcing them.
A wonderful manta by necromancer games is "3rd edition rules, 1st edition feel". Why is that such a powerful statement? Because what people want with D&D is that 1st edition tradition, that "feel". The crunch, the settings are second place to that.
We want the game to grow not by changing things for the sake of change. Perhaps its an unrealistic dream, but I think Deep down we would love to have a new edition and be able to say "there it is. It is done". 4th edition seems to say, "While 3rd edition was a step in the right direction, and it has some issues at the edges, we've decided we could make a better game if we scrapped the whole thing, wrote a new game, and slapped the D&D label on it."
Our degree of dieing inside is directly proportional to how fully we perceive this as being the direction 4th edition is taking. It seems less like an improvement and "clean-up" and more like a new game with every little scrap thrown to us.
As a publisher, I would like to say that perhaps you guys should continue 3.5 well into the release of 4th edition. See how it plays out. I would say wait a year after (summer '09) before publishing 4E content, but financial concerns may make that unlikely.
The problems with 3rd edition IMO are "wedge" issues that many DMs are quite capable of house-ruling. If there arises some consensus in the community that House-rules A, B, and C are the norm and should be made core, that would seem the time to issue a new edition.
I like BoNS, but I haven't used it nor have any players interested in it. I like Star Wars Saga...havne't actually played it nor thought it woth the effort to implement anything from it my games...I think many others are in the same boat. Interesting stuff, but meh, too much work to implement. So great WOTC is doing the work for us. But it seems to me if I cannot be bothered, and many others cannot be bothered, then why bother?
ugh...I am ranting! God help me.
/rantoff
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Please be specific.
What SPECIFIC changes are bothering you?
I can say with some certainty that our world will have elves that do not live in the forest, and I strongly suspect it will have chaotic evil succubi. I also think that eladrins are a planar race, and they aren't really welcome on Golarion in the same way they will soon be a part of the Forgotten Realms, etc.
Obviously, warforged will not be a part of the setting, and gnomes will be.
So what worries you about what you've heard so far?
--Erik
But I need to know what worries you guys about 4.0 and what we can do to retain you even if we do make the switch.
Nothing worries me - I'm simply choosing not to upgrade. I feel a major edition upgrade (and change) at this time is too soon, and lately I feel like the balance at WotC swinging majorly towards profit over product (where the profit motive is creeping into the design and release philosophy - e.g. gnomes not in PHB1). I choose not to support that.
For me to continue to buy (4th edition specific) Paizo products, I'd need a 3.5 download as well.
However, either way I'll still continue to buy the Paizo edition-proof products, like the item cards or the map tiles (as long as they don't suck, of course :) ).
I'll say this to you Erik, the main thing I think WotC has lost from me is my respect and trust. They will have to do a lot to gain that back, especially since I have seen they are not all there is. Paizo is here. I am personally going to keep going with what I am doing now, playing Greyhawk and Pathfinder here soon. I've already started falling in love with the idea of it.
Essentially, I am not afraid of 4th edition, I even enjoy the streamlined skills. If the Mooks become like they are in SW Saga, I can handle that. I'm really not sure what they are doing with magic, so I'll reserve judgement there, but I am sure I'll (at the very least) check out 4th edition. I'm just not going to blindly jump. I am not one of those who's spirit dies each time I hear about 4th edition, that distinction is reserved for times when I can't game.
Paizo is responsible for bringing me back into the fold for D&D in recent years. I had become very disillusioned a few years back because of lack of support for Greyhawk, which had always been my setting of choice. I played FR (not that there is anything wrong with that...) for some of that time, but was dissatisfied. Then I came across Dungeon. I'd seen it before Paizo and had never been impressed. This time I was not only impressed, I found Greyhawk info inside! Just the stuff I had been looking for.
For me, 4th edition is more a situation based on 'what are they going to do this time?' Not so much anything specific. They should be much more forthcoming about what we can expect and try to show us more appreciation as their customers. There are not so many industries that you can essentially count on customers for life (this seems to be one of them, for the most part), provided you do nothing to alienate that customer base. I just think that Hasbro/WotC has lost touch.
Paizo stays in touch with us, as your own recent posting was proof Erik. Just keep doing what you are doing, and just ask yourself the same questions (whatever they are ^_^) you do before finishing a product now.
YOU and Paizo we believe in.
No Golarian Warforged? No? LOL!
I really don't care so much about the racial changes, racial levels, etc....
I am really concerned about the changes that are being done to the Character Classes. I've heard (<----yeah, I know, through WotC though), that mechanically a Psion will be the exact same thing as a Wizard. I'm not sure if I like that idea. Also I'm not sure the 30th level = 20th level 3.5 character analogy. I realize that all these things aren't completed yet, but they are not revealing anything about these classes, levels, etc, for any of us to take a look at and critique.
Their lack of communication is a primary problem.
|
it would be alot of work, but if you published in 4.0, but had downloads of 3.5 stat blocks (unless the chang is not significant, like 3.0 to 3.5). that would be great.
That's exactly what I'd most like to see. I couldn't say one way or the other if my group will eventually switch editions, but I can say as an absolute certainty that we will not switch within one year of the new edition's publication. I'm pretty committed to running the Pathfinder stuff for my group for the foreseeable future. If that material remains convenient to use with 3.5 for the next several APs, then I'm certain to remain a subscriber - even if the AP is primarily designed for 4th edition.
Maybe reading the 4th edition version of Pathfinder while using the converted-to-3.5 version will eventually sell me on moving to 4th edition - solely on the worth of the crunch changes? If both versions are available, I think monitoring these boards and the opinions of some of the more experienced DMs here will end up being a great way to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the new edition vs the old. That would help me make the better edition choice in the end.
|
|
Please be specific.
What SPECIFIC changes are bothering you?
I can say with some certainty that our world will have elves that do not live in the forest, and I strongly suspect it will have chaotic evil succubi. I also think that eladrins are a planar race, and they aren't really welcome on Golarion in the same way they will soon be a part of the Forgotten Realms, etc.
Obviously, warforged will not be a part of the setting, and gnomes will be.
So what worries you about what you've heard so far?
--Erik
As far setting or to put more blandly, the "fluff", I personally have no specific worries. Keep true to what you've managed so far and you guys are good to go.
Whatever 4E brings, as long as Paizo basically designs a world that resembles a classic D&D setting (a Medieval Setting for the most part) then everything will be fine. No complaints there. It's when the mechanics begin to influence setting that danger lies. 30th level epics "leaders" in Forgotten Realms are a good example. The mechanics of Epic rules were extended into the setting to the detriment of the setting. Or take Teiflings being "core" in 4E. So designing a setting where Teiflings have a history, a nation, etc is what worries me.
The best settings have easily recognizeable elements. A desert with "beduin-like" people, Hairy barbaric northmen, etc. Sure, this may seem tired, but as long as it goes no further, it becomes a simple thing to write about the glowing city in the frozen north where the lowest citizen is cultured in the arts. DMs, published adventure add the exceptions. Starting with exceptions and designing a setting around that is usually to narrow for any mass appeal.
You would keep my business as long as you publish adventures as your focus. I've always said WOTC has the wrong idea. Sure, there may be more players than DMs, so superficially its best to publish "Player" content *cough*splatbook*cough*. But its the DMs who bring players to the game every week or so and keep them there. And DMs need something. Paizo, IMHO, is primarily geared as a DMs publisher. Keep us informed, keep the creativity spigot on, the spirit of sharing, and the rest will take care of itself.
I honestly thing you guys could "fix" the problems with 3.5 with a pathfinder sized book and keep selling 3.5 products as well.
|
|
To answer Eric, my only concern is going from a game that runs along at a fair clip with a minimum of rule-related confusion to one where everyone is sitting around the table reading sections of the Player's Handbook and looking baffled. I remember when we first picked up 3rd edition, and the amount of confusion at the table made the game less fun for quite awhile before we started to really get the hang of it. Now that I feel half-way competent with this ruleset, we're gonna change it all?
No way. I'll let more ambitious souls playtest the new edition for as long as I can before switching. If I switch, it will be because the new game runs better. Period. But it's going to take time for that fact to establish itself.
|
|
Obviously, warforged will not be a part of the setting, and gnomes will be.
So hypothetically, if gnomes are no longer a core race, but there will be gnomes in Golarion, and the new edition features this new race-feature level progression-thingy, does it follow that Paizo will publish a race-feature level progression-thingy for Golarion gnomes? Do you think that would be something to appear in the pages of Pathfinder? Or some other publication?
EDIT: assuming Pathfinder goes 4th edition, of course.
So what worries you? My sense is that the smart move is to convert to 4.0 but to keep alive certain assumptions and traditions that WotC seems to be dumping.
I think you've got it exactly. The thing that worries me most about 4E is not the rule changes but the drastic changes to the D&D meta-setting. Why throw out the Great Wheel? Why add strange new core races?
If Paizo switches to the new rules but keeps all the old D&D flavour and meta-setting, that will go a long way to retaining its current customer base.
However, from a business sense and in the long run it may be a losing strategy as new players weaned on 4E may find Paizo output to be too old-school for their taste, even if the rules are the same. Hard to say.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
So hypothetically, if gnomes are no longer a core race, but there will be gnomes in Golarion, and the new edition features this new race-feature level progression-thingy, does it follow that Paizo will publish a race-feature level progression-thingy for Golarion gnomes? Do you think that would be something to appear in the pages of Pathfinder? Or some other publication?
It does stand to reason that we would do so, yes. Most likely in a big hardcover campaign setting book to be delivered some time next summer, rather than within the context of Pathfinder itself. We want to keep Pathfinder focused on the campaign, so extra stuff will probably show up in other sources.
--Erik
Please be specific.
What SPECIFIC changes are bothering you?
I think it's hard at this stage to specify which changes to D&D in 4E are most bothersome, because, as you well know, we don't have a lot of specific details beyond fluff. You've always been quick to point out that Golarion will have its own fluff that's more in keeping with D&D's 30+ years of shared story. That's good and reassuring.
What isn't good and reassuring is the way that the designers and promoters of 4E at WotC, through the blogs, infrequent forum posts, and other outlets, have given the impression that the rules changes to things like, say, magic will be very extensive. "More fun," they say. "Easier to use," they say. This may all be true, but we have no way to evaluate the veracity of it one way or the other. I think that's what's bothering people. WotC is basically saying, "Trust us" and quite a few people simply aren't willing to trust them, not without good reason.
The mechanical changes to 4E might very well be good and have minimal to no impact on the thematic core of D&D. It's possible but, I think, unlikely. A lot of D&D's shared story evolved as a consequence of the way the rules worked. It's not like gamers just arbitrarily decided to play D&D according to their whims. Rather, the style of play evolved because of the way the rules were structured. Vancian magic, for example, has consequences for game play and it isn't simply interchangeable with per encounter style magic without a loss of something.
Or maybe it is. We simply don't know. No one does, because WotC, for reasons of its own, is being tight-lipped. This has gotten people antsy and understandably so. On the one hand, they keep telling us 4E is "still D&D," but on the other they keep emphasizing the cool new things it does differently than 3E (and, by extension, 1E and 2E). How are we to interpret this? No one knows.
So, while I am deeply sympathetic to your desire to know specifically what's bothering people about 4E, it's a hard question to answer. For myself, I would say that I fear that mechanical changes to core elements of the game, like magic and character classes, will have thematic/play style fallout that will do violence to the way I've played D&D for 25 years over three editions. I trust you and Paizo to try and do right by "the old ways," but, in the end, there's no way for us to know that that's even possible.
Most likely in a big hardcover campaign setting book to be delivered some time next summer, rather than within the context of Pathfinder itself. We want to keep Pathfinder focused on the campaign, so extra stuff will probably show up in other sources.
...I luff you! *squee*
Honestly Erik? I want Dragon and Dungeon to be back in their dead tree format and published by Paizo. But that is not going to happen for at least a few years if ever. From Paizo, I just want you do be doing what you all are doing now. Putting out quality products and caring about the customers. And that is if you stick to 3.5 e or move to 4.0 e. No matter what, you all at Paizo have earned my trust. WotC has not.
Well I'm sure that I have 3.5 material enough to play for a very long time should I end up disliking 4e. Also - if 4e turns out to be "less than one could hope", then there will be more 3.5 stuff on the net. People will only upgrade if they like what they see!
If I should point to something worrying so far, it would be this:
They say easier, faster, and more monsters in encounters!
This all says to me - simplified rules. While this may not be a bad thing in itself, I feel as though combat cannot be tweaked much in this aspect without loosing important stuff. Could it be that the game, while still remniscent of D&D, becomes a kiddie game?
There I said it. I guess that is my biggest worry. That in the name of faster, more etc. they take away too much.
Maybe these guys are much smarter than me :-) But I just don't see how you can make the game that much easier or faster without removing the stuff that I like!
For those of you who "die a little inside" every time WotC posts a 4e preview, what are you worried about losing with the new edition?
We're still building our world and are largely ignorant of WotC's plans beyond what's been posted online. The world we build will be one that would work just great with 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition, and my hope is that it will also work great with 4.0.
So what worries you? My sense is that the smart move is to convert to 4.0 but to keep alive certain assumptions and traditions that WotC seems to be dumping. We can take the elements of 3.5 that we like and retain them, pretty much whatever Wizards of the Coast decides to do.
But I need to know what worries you guys about 4.0 and what we can do to retain you even if we do make the switch.
Thanks,
Erik
#1 issue for me = The ever-escalating power creep. I like the tone of things like Pathfinder and Green Ronin's Freeport adventures because they still provide that sword-n-sorcery vibe that is so often missing from WotC. WotC is squarely in the High Fantasy camp, and the move to increase what I refer to as the "Fantasy Superhero Action Hour" effect further pushes me away from 4e.
I recognize that D&D can handle multiple fantasy genres, but everything I'm seeing is, in my opinion, moving in the wrong direction: Heroic characters at 1st level, PCs stomping greater numbers of monsters per encounter, 10 Epic levels in core, faster leveling, and "kewl powerz every encounter". The character power-advancement aspect of the game is being held up as the primary objective.
In 3e, other editions, and even in other RPGs, it's a combination of shared experience, story, challenge, and character advancement and development mingled into a fantastic experience. I'm not getting that from the 4e announcements & blogs.
As a DM, I've always found it's easier to add something in than to strip something out.
Which is probably why my 3rd-party d20/OGL stuff vastly outnumbers the WotC books in my bookcase. Between those 3rd-party products and WotC's stuff, I can customize as necessary to get the game my players and I want.
Even if 4e is the best RPG ever made, it will be years before 3rd-party publishers can provide options that allow me to make the game comparable to what my 3.5/OGL game is today. I don't want to wait, nor do I want to "re-purchase" treatments of topics & genres I've already bought. I'd rather direct my gaming $ to things like Pathfinder, Golarion setting info, Gamemastery modules, and Paizo OGL supplements.
As always, thanks for your commitment to your customers. (Another vibe I'm not getting from WotC.)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So what worries you? My sense is that the smart move is to convert to 4.0 but to keep alive certain assumptions and traditions that WotC seems to be dumping. We can take the elements of 3.5 that we like and retain them, pretty much whatever Wizards of the Coast decides to do.
That's about where I am at this point, though I have moved more into a wait and see mode. WotC has squandered the faith I had in them to do this new edition right, and so I am no longer confident that 4e will be worth playing. And, if that's the case, I guess I find myself reluctantly falling into the camp which would like to see a rule book adopting some of the 4e changes that sound good and discarding those that do not sound so good.
But, I don't have enough info, so I would say ask again in December.
From what I've seen so far, the mechanical element that scares me the most is the super powered feeling others have mentioned. On the one hand, it's cool to be able to do all those wacky running up walls/killing an army of bad guys/flaming balls of fire tricks. On the other hand, it moves the game from being potentially gritty into being potentially silly. To the extent that 4e proves too over the top John Wu-Foo-ish, I wouldn't mind seeing you put out a 4e player's guide that substitutes out some of the flashier powers/abilities for something a little more low key.
Still, that's speculation heaped upon imagination. Plus, I'm probably not the core audience for the question given that I do intend to switch to 4e, despite WotC's terrible, horrible, really bad PR.
Here's an odd thought that just hit me - I don't want to be part of their community. I don't see you guys as the appropriate venue for tackling the myspace-esque vibe coming from the DI, but to the extent you could expand your current website offerings to assist in running Pathfinder material, that would be nice. Anyway, it's a thought.
Most likely in a big hardcover campaign setting book to be delivered some time next summer, rather than within the context of Pathfinder itself. We want to keep Pathfinder focused on the campaign, so extra stuff will probably show up in other sources....I luff you! *squee*
Yay! Golarion Campaign Setting book!
...A wonderful manta by necromancer games is "3rd edition rules, 1st edition feel". Why is that such a powerful statement? Because what people want with D&D is that 1st edition tradition, that "feel". ...But I need to know what worries you guys about 4.0 and what we can do to retain you even if we do make the switch.
Thanks,
Erik
That pretty much sums it up for me. Reading through Burnt Offerings reminded me of reading through the old T1-T4 Temple of Elemental Evil compilation. Sandpoint feels like Hommlet to me.
Its like seeing a remake of one of your favorite movies from the 60's/70's, but the remake is actually better than the original.
I don't mind diversion from the pulp swords and sorcery feel. I mean, I like Eberron, and I'm one of those that wants to see more science in the dungeon like Sutter. I want some adventures on Golarion's red moon!
But the core experience needs to still feel like swords and sorcery to me, or its not DnD. Update it to the new ruleset, give it a polish because gamers are more sophisticated now (or jaded, take your pick), but keep the feel of 1st edition.
And Paizo has done a wonderful job with that. Whether its Age of Worms, Savage Tide or the new stuff on Golarion, you guys have taken the classic feel and updated it, polished it up, and made it better.
Keep on doing that, and I'll keep on subscribing, whether its 3.5 or 4.0
So hypothetically, if gnomes are no longer a core race, but there will be gnomes in Golarion, and the new edition features this new race-feature level progression-thingy, does it follow that Paizo will publish a race-feature level progression-thingy for Golarion gnomes? Do you think that would be something to appear in the pages of Pathfinder? Or some other publication?
It does stand to reason that we would do so, yes. Most likely in a big hardcover campaign setting book to be delivered some time next summer, rather than within the context of Pathfinder itself. We want to keep Pathfinder focused on the campaign, so extra stuff will probably show up in other sources.
--Erik
Erik,
I've been very turned off by the flavor of 4e that we've been shown so far AND I've stated I wouldn't be upgrading to 4e because of all the great 3.5 material I already own. However, if Paizo switches to 4e and produces an alternate PHB/Setting (such as Monte's Arcana Evolved) which gives me the traditional D&D flavor to use with the new 4e mechanics then I would consider upgrading to 4e eventually if the 4e rules do in fact deliver on the promises made by WotC developers.Things I don't like that I've heard:
Devil succubi.
Warforged and Tieflings as core races.
Loss of gnomes.
Using warblades and warlocks as core classes.
Faster XP gain over 30 levels instead of slower over 20.
Axing the Great Wheel and the planar history I enjoy.
Integrating weird "traditions" into the flavor of wizards.
Things I don't want but suspect will happen:
Melee classes with abilities akin to spells (Tome of Battle - bleh).
A strong "stormtrooper" syndrom where players feel overpowered.
Magic changing too much and losing it's classic D&D feel.
Things that sound promising to me:
Faster combat and less preparation.
Streamlining of skills.
I would prefer for you guys to write 3.75, but I know that's unlikely to happen and not in your best interests.
Please be specific.
What SPECIFIC changes are bothering you?
I think it's hard at this stage to specify which changes to D&D in 4E are most bothersome, because, as you well know, we don't have a lot of specific details beyond fluff. You've always been quick to point out that Golarion will have its own fluff that's more in keeping with D&D's 30+ years of shared story. That's good and reassuring.
What isn't good and reassuring is the way that the designers and promoters of 4E at WotC, through the blogs, infrequent forum posts, and other outlets, have given the impression that the rules changes to things like, say, magic will be very extensive. "More fun," they say. "Easier to use," they say. This may all be true, but we have no way to evaluate the veracity of it one way or the other. I think that's what's bothering people. WotC is basically saying, "Trust us" and quite a few people simply aren't willing to trust them, not without good reason.
The mechanical changes to 4E might very well be good and have minimal to no impact on the thematic core of D&D. It's possible but, I think, unlikely. A lot of D&D's shared story evolved as a consequence of the way the rules worked. It's not like gamers just arbitrarily decided to play D&D according to their whims. Rather, the style of play evolved because of the way the rules were structured. Vancian magic, for example, has consequences for game play and it isn't simply interchangeable with per encounter style magic without a loss of something.
Or maybe it is. We simply don't know. No one does, because WotC, for reasons of its own, is being tight-lipped. This has gotten people antsy and understandably so. On the one hand, they keep telling us 4E is "still D&D," but on the other they keep emphasizing the cool new things it does differently than 3E (and, by extension, 1E and 2E). How are we to interpret this? No one knows.
So, while I am deeply sympathetic to your desire to know...
And what maliszew said!
|
|
Maliszew, Eric Tillemans and BPorter pretty much said what I feel.
Fluff changes can be retro-retconned (argh!), and are really minor factors.
The rules change biased toward a more hyper-heroic cinematic whatever or that is geared towards the MMORPG market taste is no longer an RPG I'd like to play.
And until I see some hard rules I won't buy the "easier to run combat/monster/NPC" propaganda, sorry.
I want WotC to repect us like Paizo does. Paizo makes us feel like we matter and that they care about both the game and us.
Also, I want Mike to cry like a girl when my Villian in CoV beats his hero! ~grins~
I cannot really tell what bothers me about 4e, as we know too little at this point. But changing things of the game I took for granted, like races amd classes, like the level count, like the having the great wheel cosmology thrown out, are changes that seem to be made for changes sake, and thats something I´m sceptical of. Why is it necessary for enjoying the game to have 30 levels now?
But this won´t help paizo in their work, as paizo won´t publish other 4e rules.
So, about content: well, if what can be gleaned from the playtests comes true, then 4e seems to me to have a distinct "video game style", with fast encounters, lots of nifty powers to the PCs, and lots of monsters with "boss monsters" at the end. I fear that it will degenerate into a hackfest, but I want my adventures with more brain fodder. Action is a part of D&D, sure, but if it gets the only part, it will bore the hell out of me.
I want a setting with hints of ancient history, with untamed wildernesses, but also with grand empires and high politics. The "points of light" idea seems to me to reek of Diablo 2, where there were a few strongholds of light, and only monsters in between.
I still love the old Known World/Mystara setting, for example, for it provided this mixture (and it calls forth a powerful nostalgia, as well.) I love Greyhawk because it shows a world in a struggle of good vs. evil, but with lots of grey shades in between. Just having a few beacons around which humanity is huddled in a hostile world does not appeal to me.
I want classic fantasy or sword and sorcery in my games. Keep it pure! I don´t need robots and magic railways.
And I want the changes that are made to be made for improvement, not for changes sake. You can change everything, if it is for the better.
Stefan
So what worries you about what you've heard so far?
My concern is the class system of 4th ed., specifically with the "role" of each class. If you play a Fighter, for example, that player has to be the leader of the party due to the mechanics of that particular class. "Role," in my mind, is a matter of roleplaying and player choice, not something that should be legislated. I think the floor should be open to allow players to create whatever character they choose and have the mechanics to support those decisions. So far from what I've seen in the previews, the design mentality is instead geared toward fitting everything into neat categories. That isn't my style of gaming, nor is it the style of my players...
Okay...to summarize, all of the posters above have at this point brought up just about everything I have concerns about. Magic, Class-to-Class Mechanics (i.e. Wizard->Sorcerer->Psion?), Succubi as Devil (WTF?!), and the rest of the slew.
In case I didn't state it well enough before...they have all said it since. The reason I trust Paizo and love your products is because you guys seem to care about us and what we think. Here, we are important, he we matter, here we are heard. And they may take our 'lives/Dungeon and Dragon', but they shall never take our FREEDOM!
Ahem....Anyway, thanks again, I hope some of this feedback helps you guys Erik. I for one am going to keep fighting for you guys, just lead us to freedom and we'll follow you. I am quoting WAY too much Braveheart today....
Oh...I am so getting the Pathfinder CS when it comes out! WOOT!
|
|
Please be specific.
What SPECIFIC changes are bothering you?
Here is what has me worried.
When 3rd edition came out, I was ecstatic. The rules were much more logical to me and it had a nice flow to it that was missing for me in 2nd edition. It also had a lot of expansion potential that I liked -- multiclassing, feats, prestige classes, skills, etc.).
Looking back, however, I remember "recreating" a lot of creatures, magic items, and to some degree spells that were in 2nd edition that didn't immediately make its way into 3rd edition.
I was young(er) when 3rd edition came out and had only been married about two years. No kids. Read -- I had a lot of time to mess with it.
I no longer have the time to devote to converting every creature/magic item to the new edition.
So, what specifically is bothering me about 4th edition? I am most concerned about what won't be included in the new edition.
It has been suggested that gnomes will not be in the new SRD (at least). Does that mean that Paizo can simply publish their own version of a gnome? If so, can they simply do that with other creatures? (Beholders? Mind Flayers? Githyanki?) If Paizo puts out their own version of the gnome and then WotC comes up with a supplement with their version, what does that mean? (Is it important?)
Will I be purchasing 4e? Most likely. Will I be playing it? It really depends -- but in any case, it probably won't be until at least the 2nd Monster Manual comes out to help fill in the holes created when 4e initially comes out.
While a lot of 4e is 'flavor' and stuff that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things (the Great Wheel and so on), if I want to keep the Great Wheel in my campaign, I will not be looking forward to re-creating the imp because the quasit was "good enough", or the dretch because the lemure was "good enough", or the pit fiend because the balor was "good enough" or re-creating the archons because the angels were "good enough", or the yugoloths because they were unnecessary and so on.
What concerns me the most is what won't be included -- not what will be changed. And I am concerned about what will/won't be included in the new SRD -- or what Paizo can/can't use in their products.
I'm not worried about fourth edition, it hasn't made me die a little, yet... but I'm not happy with it either. I have had little intention of switching since the announcement. I will probably pick up the players handbook (possibly the three core), but have no real intention of running a game with the new rules set. The reason: I don't like what I've heard about the "feel" of it (primarily from articles and blogs from the developers). Ignoring the fluff changes (which do bother me) it does sound to video gamey. I love video games: I love third person platformers, Japanese style RPG's, fighting games; I don't want my paper pencil RPG's to feel that way. What's the point? Why not just play a video game? The social interaction will still be there with this system, but if me and my friends are going to sit down and play an RPG with over the top powerful heroes with the equivalent super human and mutant power from character creation, why not just play a super hero game instead? I want my DnD sword and sorcery, just like I want my Call of C'thulhu disturbing and my Traveler full of science fiction cliches. There have been several people on the boards that have expressed the same line of thinking.
The streamlining of the rules that has been hinted at sound marvelous, that I could jump on the band wagon for. But I could probably house rule that myself, or scour the numerous alternate rules systems from the supplements I own, to tweak it in a similar way. What's to prevent me from finding those rules that streamline play in the SRD and simply adding them to my volume of houserules? (The availability of the SRD might).
Having written all of that, I will probably continue to purchase Paizo products (specifically the Pathfinder line) after the switch to 4th Edition. Only because of the incredible quality of the line and the products. I've no intention of jumping on the bandwagon once the wagon is starting to fill up. Most of my gaming income will go to picking up previous editions material.
I've plenty, right now, to keep me going probably into my 40's (I'm 30). But I like game products. I'm a collector. Even though it's unlikely that I'll run most of the campaigns and the modules, I both purchase in the future and currently own, anytime soon (if ever) I enjoy having them, looking through them and pulling inspiration from them. There's a lot of quality products out there right now that I don't own that I'd rather buy instead of throwing my earnings to Wizards.
I don't blame Wizards for doing what they are doing. I'm not angry at them for releasing the next rules set, they have to make a profit. Yes, I'd preferred if they'd waited a year or two more. (I was predicting next year, but erroneously thought that's when the announcement would be made, not when they'd release it). I'm not boycotting them, I don't want them to fail, I have just had to prioritize where my gaming income will go once the switch has been made. From the look of things thus far, it will not go to Wizards, not because I'm angry, indignant or depressed about 4th edition, just because I'd rather have something else.
For those of you who "die a little inside" every time WotC posts a 4e preview, what are you worried about losing with the new edition?
We're still building our world and are largely ignorant of WotC's plans beyond what's been posted online. The world we build will be one that would work just great with 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition, and my hope is that it will also work great with 4.0.
So what worries you? My sense is that the smart move is to convert to 4.0 but to keep alive certain assumptions and traditions that WotC seems to be dumping. We can take the elements of 3.5 that we like and retain them, pretty much whatever Wizards of the Coast decides to do.
But I need to know what worries you guys about 4.0 and what we can do to retain you even if we do make the switch.
Thanks,
Erik
The short version Erik IMO is that 4e promises - from what little we see so far - to completely upset the apple cart that supports what we as a consumer base have come to expect from our mutual hobby as an overall 'edition' of the game.
Simplified skills ? Great, no problem. A level playing field for playable races - sweet, no more of this PITA Level adjustment idiocy. A 30 level progression 'built in' - welcome news. A really narrow list of what hands one's foes an AOO - about frickin' time.
ALL of these could have been easily done without a full-on edition switch. All the rest of the stuff they are promising ... is what causes so much worry. And since we're stuck waiting for the next several months' time, being the gossipy old gamers that we are, is several months' time that vicious cycle of speculation and rumor-mongering will do untellable amounts of damage...
I was hoping that you would weigh in over here Turin. I was contemplating a Threadjacking to call you over this way earlier.
Turin does bring up a REALLY good point though. No matter how much Wiz would like to keep things 'secret', they are hurting themselves more and more by not giving us concrete answers. Come on, we are people that roll dice to Sense Motive, of course we are going to endlessly speculate about whats going on behind the scenes. Especially when those answers that they do give us sound like complete BS you can't blame us thinking 'Incompetent' when that is what we see presented thus far from them.
1. The Tome of Battle-forms, if this is what they are going to change combat into, it doesn't sound streamlined to me. Posters have said keeping track of dodge is too hard and grappling too involved; stances, maneuvers, counters-they don't sound easier.
2. Trying to read a magazine on-line.
2. Random online booster packs.
3. Gleemax.
4. WotC's website crashed on the day of their announcement. Many features only available online.
5. Logistics. This is a huge overhaul, they sound as if they are changing everything, isn't it possible some things might not get caught in playtesting?
Knowing what you know now, would you have bought 3.0? Some people might, I wouldn't have.
So hypothetically, if gnomes are no longer a core race, but there will be gnomes in Golarion, and the new edition features this new race-feature level progression-thingy, does it follow that Paizo will publish a race-feature level progression-thingy for Golarion gnomes? Do you think that would be something to appear in the pages of Pathfinder? Or some other publication?
It does stand to reason that we would do so, yes. Most likely in a big hardcover campaign setting book to be delivered some time next summer, rather than within the context of Pathfinder itself. We want to keep Pathfinder focused on the campaign, so extra stuff will probably show up in other sources.
--Erik
...and the worries wash away...
You guys are awesome!
6. Whatever this new D&D involves into, that it will be so different and unrecognizable that it will be impossible to convert it back into a campaign I would like to run.
7 (or 8). That the subject gets me so angry I won't be able to number my lists properly.