I have not spoken of my "personal preference" on the matter and don't plan to. I have to view this as a business decision, which doesn't always line up with my personal preferences.
When I say "you" in this context, I meant Paizo as a business more than you as an individual, but point taken.
Whether or not we go with 4e "right away" is an issue of when we get the core rules and a draft of the SRD, but I wouldn't put too much emphasis on that point. When we get the material affects _when_ we might convert to the new edition, but there remains the question of "if," and that has everything to do with whether we think the game is cool, whether we think the audience (specifically "our" audience) will go for it, and whether it allows us to create the sorts of products we want to create.
Again, fair enough. I suppose I might have read far more into what seemed like a pretty categorical statement on your part about your belief, based on what you know, that you could not imagine WotC producing rules incompatible with Golarion. To me, that sounded like a definitive statement, but, if you say it wasn't intended to be such, how can I argue?
I do not expect WotC to make a huge mistake.In related news, Wizards of the Coast recently appointed Gob Bluth, formerly of the BLuth Company, to head their Paizo Integration Synergy System initiative. I'm sure this will end well for all involved.COME ON!!!!
Yeah, I'll have to be upset by that one as well (although, interesting use of the acronym). I'll pass final judgement if/when they compile the last two months of Dungeon and Dragon like they said they would (which should be any day now).
If they fail on making an acceptable (in my standards) PDF of the compiled product, they won't get my money.
At least they're finally puttin crunch behind their "previews" to the new system...
Wow, I missed a bit.
Largely, I'm just posting here to show support for Paizo. Before Paizo, I did not subscribe to gaming magazines, and I did not buy pre-printed adventures, save for those meat-grinder exceptions (TOMB OF HORRORS) back in 1st edition days. I love the quality, I love the personality, and I love the community. This is why, when Dungeon/Dragon folded, I went right to Pathfinder, despite the excitingly chunky price tag.
It is worth my money to support a gaming company that produces this sort of product.
Whether Paizo switches to 4.0 or 3.5 doesn't matter so much to me. Even if you don't have the savvy to convert one system to another, somebody on the 'net does, and probably has already done so. Play with what you have fun with.
I understand why WotC is making many of the decisions it is making, but they haven't proven to me that it's worth my dime. Maybe they will. I'm not saying until I see what 4.0 looks like... maybe 4.5. Heaven knows we have enough of 3.5 to play with for another few years.
Now, Paizo on the other hand? Keep it coming, lads. Keep the genre vital.
I think of myself as a fairly typical DM and player and I plan on starting and running a 4th edition campaign when it is released. I'll give it a shot the same way I gave 3rd edition a shot when it is released. However, one trend I generally notice from WotC is their adventure lines are generally lacking, either in quality or simply rolling them out in a meaningful way.
Personally I think moving to 4.0 as soon as feasibly possible would be the correct direction, and really a no-brainer to me. Paizo getting a jump on the 4th edition market could establish it as the main go-to name for supplemental 4th edition material. In particular in the start, when people want to spend money on 4th and it is simply a matter of what is out there. If it at all possible, put some product in print, so it is at your local Barnes and Nobles along with the WotC 4.0 stuff the day it is released - and be sure to slap a big 4.0 on it.
From what I have read about 4th, a lot of the changes seem decent and I seriously doubt it would flop. At least not immediately. At worst Paizo could support both systems, perhaps simply include an on-line 3.x version of any purchased product for the time being. Extra work sure, but probably worth it to not alienate any 4.0 resistant customers.
If I was running Paizo not only would I do the above, but also roll out a fresh, flavorful campaign with a big 4.0 stamp on it as well. Out of necessity 4.0 will be fairly generic in the start and I could see thing being a pretty lucrative market if caught early.
If I was running Paizo not only would I do the above, but also roll out a fresh, flavorful campaign with a big 4.0 stamp on it as well. Out of necessity 4.0 will be fairly generic in the start and I could see thing being a pretty lucrative market if caught early.
I'm happy that you're not running Paizo then! ;)
I honestly think that Paizo will lose a good chunk of their customers if they convert to 4th edition.
WotC has fractured the D&D market with this move and has left publishers of D&D-related materials scrambling to follow their lead. It's assumed that 4th edition will bring in enough new gamers that the loss of a few discontented old-timers won't hurt all too much.
I think that's a bad assumption. I really think that a lot of 3.X players will stick with 3.X for a good while and I can't see how 4th edition is going to bring new players on board by competing with the MMORPG market.
I may be wrong but I've got a BAD feeling about the future of D&D...
I may be wrong but I've got a BAD feeling about the future of D&D...
Those sorts of criticisms sounds very familiar when 3.0 was announced and built up to the release. From what I have read 3.0 was a larger change to the core game, and had a great deal of more skepticism about it than 4.0. A lot of people basically swore up and down that 3.0 was a huge mistake and it would mean the death of the game. So really I take that sort of doom and gloom with a grain of salt.
The real noticeable thing about the 3.0 release was how quickly all things D&D turned into 3.0 and how quickly older editions essentially died product wise. I mean within a year, no more 2nd edition material, at all. Sure some folks at Dragonfoot hung onto older editions, and there is even a markets for some nostalgic material (C&C). 3rd edition is in an awkward spot, is it too new to be nostalgic, and a bit to old to keep supporting it of 4th edition does indeed turn out to be the better system. That and 3rd edition genuinely has some severe fault - high level play is tedious, page-long stat-blocks and templated monsters, inherited limitations in skills and imbalanced feats. Not to argue the game, as I do like 3.x, but I would definitely like to see some things fixed.
Those sorts of criticisms sounds very familiar when 3.0 was announced and built up to the release. From what I have read 3.0 was a larger change to the core game, and had a great deal of more skepticism about it than 4.0. A lot of people basically swore up and down that 3.0 was a huge mistake and it would mean the death of the game. So really I take that sort of doom and gloom with a grain of salt.
Your experience was very different from mine. I lost players to 2E that came back with 3E. Many people were in love with WotC at the time because they *saved* D&D. TSR was dead. WotC at the time did everything they could to please those happy with their 2E campaigns by creating a conversion document to help them make the switch. WotC also assured the gaming public that yes, your 2E fluff would still be good. As an example, Planescape 2E fluff works just fine with the core 3.x. Planescape fluff will not work with core 4E.
3E brought back many 1E features of the game: half-orcs, devils, demons, assassins, etc. 3E welcomed back many who had left. 4E is not doing any of this. 4E wants to be its own game.
Unfortunately, the people that ran WotC then are long gone now....
Those sorts of criticisms sounds very familiar when 3.0 was announced and built up to the release. From what I have read 3.0 was a larger change to the core game, and had a great deal of more skepticism about it than 4.0. A lot of people basically swore up and down that 3.0 was a huge mistake and it would mean the death of the game. So really I take that sort of doom and gloom with a grain of salt.
This may very well have been your experience, and I understand that this obviously then colors your view of the debate, but I am getting increasingly annoyed at the statement that "this is exactly what happened when 3rd edition came out." I'm not going to authoritatively say that there weren't similar comments and concerns, but I guess what annoys me about this is that its become almost a means by which to dismiss any comment.
"This is just like when 3rd edition came out," has become code for, "I'm going to ignore what you have to say and label you as a knee jerk reactionary." I'm not saying that this is so in your case, I'm just saying that the comment, in and of itself, is beginning to take on that connotation when its been used by many that want to end any discussion on the topic by using that trump card.
I agree that I dislike comments that are overly simplistic. I don't like comments like, "WOTC just wants to make more money," or, "WOTC is trying to ruin the game." Yes, they want to make money, and so does Paizo, and MWP, and Green Ronin, and a lot of other companies I don't have a problem with. Its how you stay in business long enough to make more products. And no, I don't think that the guys at WOTC have decided to ruin D&D just spit in my face or anyone else's.
However, I do get irate when people that share some well reasoned, valid concerns, get dismissed by overly broad statements. While I am almost 100% certain at this point I will not buy 4th edition, I have tried to point out things that I have liked, and I have tried to be very clear to state that just because I don't like something, that doesn't give my any magical insight into how 4th edition will sell, or let me tap into the collective unconscious of everyone that dislikes what they have heard about 4th edition.
I do, however, think, that as a person that has played D&D for 20 years, and as someone, especially on these boards, that has been a supporter of Paizo for years, and tries to continue to support them by picking up what I can of their products, that its not unreasonable to expect that my opinion should count for something. It shouldn't count for more than anyone else's, and I don't speak for anyone but myself, but at the same time, I do have opinions, and reasons to base those opinions on, and I would appreciate not being painted with a broad brush by people that don't want do deal with dissenting opinions.
Again, this isn't directed at you specifically, but that particular statement, "this is just like when 3rd edition came out," has really become a pet peeve of mine. Almost as much as "when 4th edition comes out you guys that are against it will end up buying it anyway."
I may be wrong but I've got a BAD feeling about the future of D&D...
Those sorts of criticisms sounds very familiar when 3.0 was announced and built up to the release. So really I take that sort of doom and gloom with a grain of salt.
I wasn't criticizing, just giving my gut feeling.
To be honest if 4th edition is the only supported edition of D&D then I'll move on to a new game. 3rd edition made a lot of changes to the mechanics of the game but managed to hold onto the style and feel of what D&D should be. Greyhawk wasn't killed off, the races and classes in the PHB were familiar to me and my group, magic and magic items worked in a similar way, and (though cleaned up) skills had been a part of my D&D games for years...
As in DaveMage's case, 3rd edition brought those who had abandoned D&D after the mess of 2nd edition (due largely to the release of WAY too many supplements) back to the table and into the dungeon.
None of us see 4th edition as necessary while, in hindsight, most of us saw that 3rd edition was a long time coming.
As a further rant I have seen a lot of people on these boards talk about how they love the game and have been playing for 20 odd years, and don't like the corporate direction it has gone, and the proliferation of supplements etc.. They complain that wizards doesn't care about them blah, blah, blah. Well why should they. Just because you love the game and play on a regular basis doesn't make you a customer. If you don't actually buy books for the game on a regular basis the only thing they will want to know from you is why you aren't buying new books. If the reason is because you aren't interested in new books and supplements, then your opinion means nothing to them because you aren't really a customer.
The thing is is that the long time fans are the best advertisment that any game can possibly have. Is it easier to get involved in something when everyone is completely new or when there is an established community that can help you, show you how to enjoy it better, and so on? Do smokers start smoking because they saw an ad on a billboard or because their friends were all smoking and they were the only one that wasn't?
By "firing" the currently players, they have to spend considerable time and money to create a new core audiance, a new legion of fanatics that will buy whatever they put out and defend even their greatest blunders as visionary brilliance. (While one could interpret what I just said as having direct relivance on 4E, that was not how it was intended; please do not take it as such.)
What I find interesting is the number of people who say that they have already made up their mind when they haven't even seen the product out yet. Sure there has been lots of talk over the internet, but that's lot different than having the game in your hands and actually trying it out. I like 3.5 and think it is a much better game than the previous editions, but the more I play, particularly at higher levels the more I see how it could still be much better than it is now, and I'm excited about some of the ideas that they have to make the game more playable and fun. However, I'm not the nostalgic sort so the tradition of the game doesn't matter to me near as much as how much fun I have playing and running it. I also like buying dnd books, so I think I can handle seeing a lot of my 3E books become obsolete and get boxed up and sent to my basement. However, I'm not saying I'm certainly going to play 4E. I will for sure check out the books when they come out and I will likely buy the core rule books pretty soon after they are released, and I have a feeling I will be testing out some 4E game session by next september. I hope to wrap up my Savage Tide campaign by June, and since that is when the new books come out I'll be in a bit of predicament because I had wanted to run Rise of the Rune Lords or Crimson Throne next. I might try to convert them to 4E, but I'm not sure if that will work well, so I may have to decide between playing 3E when I would prefer to play 4E so I can run the APs or wait until Paizo releases a 4E AP.
However, one trend I generally notice from WotC is their adventure lines are generally lacking, either in quality or simply rolling them out in a meaningful way.
Because of the very thing you state above, I can't forsee switching until my third party vendor of choice (Paizo) is able to convert as well.
You sort of advocate Paizo pushing some 4th edition content out to coincide with the release. I would say 'don't' unless they're convinced, by their own standards, that they can maintain their standards.
Those standards are why I'm here. They're also why I would be willing to switch to 4th edition when they do.
But not before.
You're right about that one- new players are usually brought to the game by existing players and dms. However, I think that the people who are working on the new edition are all passionate believers and lovers of the game. They have been involved in the game since its beginnings (maybe not as designers, but as people who played it and loved it). They know the history and traditions behind the game. I think it's great that when looking at making the game better they aren't afraid to make big changes, and aren't scared to mess with something that isn't working for the system just because that has always been the way it has been done. For instance, just because fireball has always been 1d6 per level damage since the beginning, doesn't mean that the spell should be kept that way for the new edition. Looking at all aspects of the game critically is a good thing IMO. I look forward to seeing the new system.
As a further rant I have seen a lot of people on these boards talk about how they love the game and have been playing for 20 odd years, and don't like the corporate direction it has gone, and the proliferation of supplements etc.. They complain that wizards doesn't care about them blah, blah, blah. Well why should they. Just because you love the game and play on a regular basis doesn't make you a customer. If you don't actually buy books for the game on a regular basis the only thing they will want to know from you is why you aren't buying new books. If the reason is because you aren't interested in new books and supplements, then your opinion means nothing to them because you aren't really a customer.The thing is is that the long time fans are the best advertisment that any game can possibly have. Is it easier to get involved in something when everyone is completely new or when there is an established community that can help you, show you how to enjoy it better, and so on? Do smokers start smoking because they saw an ad on a billboard or because their friends were all smoking and they were the only one that wasn't?
By "firing" the currently players, they have to spend considerable time and money to create a new core audiance, a new legion of fanatics that will buy whatever they put out and defend even their greatest blunders as visionary brilliance. (While one could interpret what I just said as having direct relivance on 4E, that was not how it was intended; please do not take it as such.)
What I find interesting is the number of people who say that they have already made up their mind when they haven't even seen the product out yet.
Ah! But you can't generalize about people generalizing! :)
The other side is represented here, even if isn't as loud.
But I look at rulesets like console video games. They can be great, but if they don't have the software I want to play, I don't need them.
That's the paradigm shift between 3rd to 4th, that is different than 2nd to 3rd.
3.5 has issues, but not as many as it's predecessors. I can afford to wait till my campaign setting has the time to make a smooth transition. I'm not crying foul on WOTC for not getting the rules out, but nevertheless, they're not getting any chance at my money till Paizo has a chance to review those rules. Once that happens, then it will be considered.
I think it's great that when looking at making the game better they aren't afraid to make big changes, and aren't scared to mess with something that isn't working for the system just because that has always been the way it has been done.
The systems looks great. Its the fluff that scares/saddens me. My last job, when we were going to test a product, we tested it on a low moneymaker. If it performed well, we'd incorporate it into other products. But we NEVER messed with your big money maker. Regardless of how well it is finally received, it is similar to new coke in that they are testing something brand new with their biggest selling item. If it swims, it'll be business as usual for them. If it sinks, what else does the company have (besides Magic, which they're messing around with right now as well) that can keep them afloat? Will Hasbro sell them off because they are now so far in the red that its unsustainable? I'm not pronouncing doom and gloom (D&G) on WotC; but this just seems like a very risky move.
I look forward to seeing the new system.
I want to be, I really want to be. But I've seen enough to not make me want to check it out.
I go where the best product is. My spending dollars for games seem to be finding their way more and more to Paizo products. If Paizo continues to produce Quality products for gamers, then I will continue to buy them.
If that means not converting to the latest watered down version of a game. Then, Woohoo.
I have 8 people that show up to a bi-weekly game that has been running for 10 years. Convincing them to switch to a new edition is not something I would look forward to doing again anyway.
My group won't even be looking at 4.0 until 2009. Then we will make our decision based on what's good for the group. My money is on sticking with Paizo and their direction.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I do not expect WotC to make a huge mistake.In related news, Wizards of the Coast recently appointed Gob Bluth, formerly of the BLuth Company, to head their Paizo Integration Synergy System initiative. I'm sure this will end well for all involved.COME ON!!!!
Yeah, I'll have to be upset by that one as well (although, interesting use of the acronym). I'll pass final judgement if/when they compile the last two months of Dungeon and Dragon like they said they would (which should be any day now).
If they fail on making an acceptable (in my standards) PDF of the compiled product, they won't get my money.
At least they're finally puttin crunch behind their "previews" to the new system...
Actually, I was just quoting Gob Bluth.
--Erik
From a business perspective, I believe the path of least resistance and (probably) highest sales is to go along with the flow and support the new edition. I am reasonably certain that the customers will be there for continued 3.5 support for at least a year or two after the launch of the new edition, but I am unconvinced that distributors and retailers feel the same way.
I know the local store I shop with is torn: they resent the sleazy maneuvering that WotC did, but feel they have no choice but to carry the new product line.
I can't help but believe that Paizo will have to drink the Kool-Aid at some point. Whether it's 2008, or 2009...<shrug> But if Paizo keeps putting out quality products (assuming WotC issues a reasonable license)--I don't think anyone will hold it against you. At least not for long. As much as I would like to praise you for stickin' it to the Man (TM), I can't but believe it's a suboptimal choice for a publisher so heavily invested in WotC's products.
I've been on both sides of that fence with Paizo and Dragon and Dungeon. At one point a few years ago both mags took a turn which I think absolutely stank. So I dropped my subscription and stopped buying. When the mags set aside the puerile crap they were dishing out, I subscribed again. After a couple of years of continued quality, I re-upped for a long time. And then of course WotC yanked the rug out from under the industry. But that's sewage under the bridge. The point being, make good stuff, and we will buy it.
On the other hand, the 4e/3E split (heh, accidentally typed $e first time through there...), might be workable. I'm working with the author of Legendary Quest on a mega-adventure inspired by Shackled City, Age of Worms, etc., which is intended to be used with both 3.5E and LQ. Our strategy is to keep the story elements separate from the mechanics and to provide stats for both systems side by side. Of course, we're not working for profit which is a whole different beast, but we think it's worth a shot.
|
I'd like to agree with KnightErrant Jr. People saying 'This is just like when 3rd edition came out' seem to do so to dismiss otherwise valid arguments.
In addition, it misses a tremendous difference. When 3rd edition came out, nobody could continue producing material for 3rd edition. The fact that everyone eventually switched can be inferred to be the result of 1) not having any continued support and 2) 3rd edition being pretty good overall. While I certainly have heard of people still playing 2nd edition (or earlier versions) I know I was ready to switch to 3rd edition.
That's another big difference. I haven't changed much. The fact that I was excited about 3rd edition (and 3.5) means that I should be a good candidate to be excited about 4th edition. In principle, at least, I support new editions. With that said, however, there are still a lot of reasons I don't support 4th edition even though I have yet to see the rules.
And I don't think that everyone will switch. I know that if Paizo does, I'm more likely to, but I'm also highly resistant to the idea. The truth is, if they take a year before they convert, I'll be more likely to continue my subscriptions into 4th edition because I really will know what I'm in for. But I won't continue my subscriptions and go in blind.
So far, I don't like the things they've announced about 4th edition. Maybe they're just explaining them in a poor manner, but I don't think so. It doesn't sound like a game I'd be interested in. For the record, I've also tried Gurps and Rifts and didn't like them. I've also played Deadlands and Shadowrun and liked those fairly well. I can certainly evaluate a game system that's different from D&D and still enjoy it. The fact of the matter is I like D&D best, and 3.5 is my favorite incarnation. 4.0 HAS TO BE BETTER for me to switch. Not just because I have a bus load of Green Ronin products that I'll be able to use in my game for another few years as well as plenty of Paizo Dungeon era adventures I haven't yet run - because 3.x is flexible enough to allow me to make changes pretty quickly and easily. The third edition rules are a great framework for making your own rules. I wouldn't even call them house rules. They're just 'variations'. It sounds like 4th edition is going to move away from that. Things sound like 'they're that way because'. This is great for DM fiat, but probably not good for designers. Well, it means they will have fewer restraints on their creativity, but fewer guidelines on how to 'build' things in the world.
|
Personally I'm totally unexcited by 4.0. Everything I've read on EN World etc just seems uninteresting. So I'd rather stick with 3.5. I'll almost certainly follow Paizo and I'll buy a PHB to have a look for myself.
I guess my real problem with a lot of the comments on here though is the suggestion that the rules need a new version because they've got problems. Whilst this is arguably true, what on Earth makes people think they'll get it right this time? It seems pretty well agreed they didn't with 2nd Ed. and they certainly needed to change 3.0 to give 3.5. It is almost 100% certain that 4.0 will be just as flawed, they'll just be different flaws. It might be better, it'll be very different and it'll certainly be unbalanced.
|
I guess my real problem with a lot of the comments on here though is the suggestion that the rules need a new version because they've got problems. Whilst this is arguably true, what on Earth makes people think they'll get it right this time? It seems pretty well agreed they didn't with 2nd Ed. and they certainly needed to change 3.0 to give 3.5. It is almost 100% certain that 4.0 will be just as flawed, they'll just be different flaws. It might be better, it'll be very different and it'll certainly be unbalanced.
An excellent point. If you start with something, and then continue to fine-tune it, you're fixing problems all the way along. When baby, bathwater, baby powder, bathtub, and some plumbing bits all go out the window and you start from scratch with a totally different design philosophy, it can't possibly be right "out of the gate". Especially since it seems like they are still writing this stuff and making it up as they go along. Heck, the playtest groups (from the blogs I've read) even seem to be making up house rules before the real rules are even set, yet.
Sometimes, yes, you need to start from scratch because the old "thing" just doesn't work anymore, or it threatens to totally collapse from all the duct tape and chewing gum holding it together. That just isn't the case with 3.x. Despite their own protestations, I think WotC did a pretty darn good job with it.
I am with you no matter what you do if you guys do not convert I wont sell my 3.5 I would get back to playing D&D instead.
There is one issue I don't really understand. I haven't heard anything about Wizards releasing any sort of OGL agreement with 4th edition. Considering that Wizards made no effort to cater to the OGL audience after (correct me if I'm wrong) Expanded Psionics Handbook, should we even assume they have an interest in it? What's to prevent them from making 4th edition, leaving all third parties (including Paizo) with only the old OGL agreement, the 3.5 ed. SRD and draconic brand policies?
Or is it important to them to get Paizo to switch for economic reasons?
Absolutely blunt, honest, answer?
As far as I am aware, there isn't anything stopping WotC from not releasing a 4th Edition OGL.
That being said, although I am highly skeptical of WotC, they have claimed there will be a 4th Edition OGL. So, take that as you will.
There is one issue I don't really understand. I haven't heard anything about Wizards releasing any sort of OGL agreement with 4th edition. Considering that Wizards made no effort to cater to the OGL audience after (correct me if I'm wrong) Expanded Psionics Handbook, should we even assume they have an interest in it? What's to prevent them from making 4th edition, leaving all third parties (including Paizo) with only the old OGL agreement, the 3.5 ed. SRD and draconic brand policies?
Or is it important to them to get Paizo to switch for economic reasons?
I think that's the multi-million dollar question Corian.
Like Disenchanter said, nothing stops them from witholding a OGL.
On the flipside-
1.) Erik believes they will
2.) They have said they will
3.) It's not a priority over getting a working version done
4.) The job may be bigger than they initially expected.
5.) Both companies maintain friendships and working relationships.
I don't dismiss the skepticism however, because I don't think anybody has a firm grasp on what WOTC's alien masters at Hasbro will do or say. The Hasbro-Lords have different agendas, and different drives to respond to (like the Rise of the Stock Holders).. And the toy market has taken a kick in the shins with this lead fiasco.
I think it would be unwise for Paizo not to switch immediately with 4e. Call it a hunch..and a few years of being involved with this hobby from the consumer side.
To miss the wave of the intial 4e, will be huge opportunity lost from which there will never be another opportunity. You've seen what happened to the Johnny-come-lately companies in 3e compared to the ones that were aggressive at the beginning. Keep up your contacts and keep in the loop. Don't miss the starting gun.
Good luck Erik.
Jay H
Colorado
Ah, ok. If they've said they will, they probably will. I just didn't know they had.
To miss the wave of the intial 4e, will be huge opportunity lost from which there will never be another opportunity. You've seen what happened to the Johnny-come-lately companies in 3e compared to the ones that were aggressive at the beginning. Keep up your contacts and keep in the loop. Don't miss the starting gun.
Yeah, like Goodman Games, Margaret Weis Productions and Malhavoc. They certainly flamed out. Oh, yeah, and Paizo. Good thing they were there at the start.
Oh, wait. None of those companies were there.
Hint: You don't have to be there first. Just make good stuff.
Well, after reading this, I've made my final decision. Under no circumstances, in this lifetime or any other, will I dirty my hands with a copy of the D&D 4e rules.
Well, after reading this, I've made my final decision. Under no circumstances, in this lifetime or any other, will I dirty my hands with a copy of the D&D 4e rules.
Strange stuff.. thanks for the link.
No schools of magic, because you're going to replace them with foci instead?
Fighter 'stickiness'? That sounds a lot like drawing aggro in a MMO.
I'd love to hear your comments in context though Andrew. Do you think these changes would prevent Paizo from presenting it's new campaign world in the way they have already started?
EDIT: CRIKEY!
Alignment: One major change to this system in 4 E is the fact characters can choose to be “unaligned,” having no significant impulses towards good or evil. Characters can still choose to be good or evil (law and chaos are not mentioned), but most characters and monsters will be unaligned. Unsurprisingly, most spells and powers that revolve around alignment are now gone.
Wouldn't unaligned be the same as nuetral?
I guess...
Actually, I always thought Alignment failed in that people chose it before they ever played the character. That the actual playstyle and group inter-dynamic would reveal the PC's true alignment after the player achieved a level or two..
But that aside, this eliminates Protection From Evil/Good, the Holy Avenger.. Spells designed to deal with creatures of alignment. Certain damage resistances..
I'm not playing Chicken Little.. and I don't know if this post is reliable or not..
But rather than blindly follow tradition for it's own sake (not that tradition is bad in the least), I run everything through the filter of "Can the Pathfinder Campaign continue to function with this ruleset?
I don't know, but it made my eyes open a little..
I'd love to hear your comments in context though Andrew. Do you think these changes would prevent Paizo from presenting it's new campaign world in the way they have already started?
Frankly, I think these changes would prevent *any* existing third-party publisher from continuing in the way they've already started. I don't think anything would work short of a brand-new setting geared toward 4e from day one.
I was hopeful that Paizo would be able to switch to 4e for the bare rules, and fix all the "fluff" problems with setting-specific rules. Now, however, I think the mechanics themselves are so far removed from 3e, or from any earlier concept of D&D, as to be unworkable.
I know that "stick with 3.5" is a rough proposition for any OGL publisher, because they'll be relying on core rulebooks that will no longer be in print. But dear God...I'd rather quit gaming altogether than switch to this dumbed-down munchkin-bait travesty. It's like Britney Spears doing an Edith Piaf tribute album. It's like King Lear performed by the Geico cavemen.
I have resisted jumping on the "this isn't D&D" bandwagon. I don't want to sound like the stereotypical grumpy old man who hates everything that isn't the way it was when he was 16 years old. But...I have a hard time seeing these rules as in any way connected with what I've understood to be D&D in my 30 years of playing the game.
I don't know what I'm going to do. I love Pathfinder, love Golarion, and want to stick with it. If Paizo switches to 4e I might continue buying Pathfinders just to read for pleasure...but I won't be able to play them.
I have resisted jumping on the "this isn't D&D" bandwagon. I don't want to sound like the stereotypical grumpy old man who hates everything that isn't the way it was when he was 16 years old. But...I have a hard time seeing these rules as in any way connected with what I've understood to be D&D in my 30 years of playing the game.
I don't know what I'm going to do. I love Pathfinder, love Golarion, and want to stick with it. If Paizo switches to 4e I might continue buying Pathfinders just to read for pleasure...but I won't be able to play them.
I'm with ya buddy. I'm like a caveman thawed out from 1st edition, so I have very little invested in terms of dollars in 3.5, so there's been no motive for me to hate 4th edition blindly, but I do love Golarion too. I call myself a Golarion GM on my own local gaming community boards.
If this post is reliable and legitimate.. Geez oh pete, they're going to wipe the board clean of a lot of existing campaign concepts.
If this post is reliable and legitimate.. Geez oh pete, they're going to wipe the board clean of a lot of existing campaign concepts.
The post is also plastered all over ENWorld's news page, so apparently it's legit.
They're going to wipe the board clean of a lot of existing gamers, too. I wonder if they realize how many? I wish them good luck in converting all those 15-year-old WoW players to D&D, though. Maybe they can also convince them to give up their iPod's and Jay-Z mp3s and start collecting Jethro Tull on vinyl.
Well, after reading this, I've made my final decision. Under no circumstances, in this lifetime or any other, will I dirty my hands with a copy of the D&D 4e rules.
I don't know... reading that. I mean I've seen the rumors kicking around for what's posted there. If a 1/10th of that is true, well, consider my heart broken for what was my game...
A lot of used bookstore and ebay sellers are going to get my gaming money come next year... well a lot more than normal.
As far as Paizo goes, I've stated this repeatedly, but they should choose the most viable option for the continued success. That being stated, I'd enter the 4th edition fray starting with the Gamemastery modules, keeping the 3rd Pathfinder 3.5. If anything to test the waters and make sure that 4th edition is going to be successful.
Though honestly, reading what I've read there, I too don't see how they're going to keep the feeling of Golarion using the new rules set with out some serious revisions and in-house rewrites.
That being stated, I'd enter the 4th edition fray starting with the Gamemastery modules, keeping the 3rd Pathfinder 3.5. If anything to test the waters and make sure that 4th edition is going to be successful.
I don't agree. Pathfinder is currently the primary publication, and as such would be a better choice for initial 4E conversion to establish a firm position in the new market.
Though honestly, reading what I've read there, I too don't see how they're going to keep the feeling of Golarion using the new rules set with out some serious revisions and in-house rewrites.
It can't be as bad as it seems at the moment. Remember, Wizards still plans to adapt Eberron to the 4E game without a major overhaul of the setting; it's not even going to undergo an advancement of the time line.
If they can do that, I have no doubt Paizo can successfully accomplish the same with Pathfinder Chronicles. And that they'll do it better than Wizards of the Coast.
EDIT: Provided Paizo ever gets a hold of the 4E rules, of course.
EDIT: Provided Paizo ever gets a hold of the 4E rules, of course.
Nice catch!
On the serious side.. I dunno. I'm not a game designer, but it looks like a severe set of changes to me. Perhaps this is why there is talk of 'campaign changing meta-events' to help rationalize these changes.
I guess we'll have to see what the Paizo Designers think when they get something concrete.
They're going to wipe the board clean of a lot of existing gamers, too. I wonder if they realize how many? I wish them good luck in converting all those 15-year-old WoW players to D&D, though. Maybe they can also convince them to give up their iPod's and Jay-Z mp3s and start collecting Jethro Tull on vinyl.
Originally, when 4th edition was announced, my brother was firmly in the pro-4th edition camp while I railed against it.
With everything that has come out regarding its release, he's joined me in my disgust over 4th edition. Unfortunately, his group is so divided over 4th edition that they are giving up on D&D altogether.
That kills me! I've never seen a version of D&D released that has actually driven people to other game systems. Very sad indeed...
Remember, Wizards still plans to adapt Eberron to the 4E game without a major overhaul of the setting
Well, the points of light aspect, theoretically, has nothing to do with the system. The system is going to get some modifications, but it won't be earthshatteringly different, atleast from what we know so far. The biggest difference for Eb's purposes are the races and classes, and EbCS can just say, "Tieflings, Dragonborn and Eladin are not in Eb. Elves are defined as ... And these races are present in Eb," and the races are fixed. They can do something similar with the classes. Or they might change Eb's races/classes some to be more inline with 4E.
Paizo, unless they wish to outright say something similar and come up with their own gnomes, half orcs, druids, bards, etc, don't really have that option.
That being stated, I'd enter the 4th edition fray starting with the Gamemastery modules, keeping the 3rd Pathfinder 3.5. If anything to test the waters and make sure that 4th edition is going to be successful.I don't agree. Pathfinder is currently the primary publication, and as such would be a better choice for initial 4E conversion to establish a firm position in the new market.
It's true that Pathfinder is the primary publication, and quite a successful one at that. The company has a lot invested in Pathfinder. That, in my opinion, is why it may be a wise choice to hold back. If only so they don't end up stuck with the 4th edition rules if those rules prove to not be successful. Personally I would proceed with the side of caution, perhaps not always a wise decision in business. It pays to take risks, but risks can also be costly. It comes down to what risks Paizo wants to take. They have a feel for the market that we don't have, and many of them are seeing it from both sides (publishers and consumers) as most are gamers too.
I do ask the question: How much are Wizards going to meed overhaul their own rules for Eberron? Eberron, while breaking from the norm of 3.5 in many ways, is still decidedly 3.5 in classes and races. These elements are fundamentally different in 4th edition (as stated by many links, Enworld, and Wizards). So while they may not overhaul the setting to fit the rules, they may have to do a significant amount of rules tweaking to fit the setting. (Which from what I can tell Paizo will also have to do... if they ever get the rules, as you say).
I will state, even though I won't be supporting 4th edition myself. Even though I don't like what I'm reading. I DO NOT hope that it fails, nor do I necessarily anticipate it failing (or succeeding for that matter). I do know that it is not a game that, as presented so far and as it's being revealed, I have a desire to participate in. But I hope for the sake of the hobby, it is successful.
Paizo, unless they wish to outright say something similar and come up with their own gnomes, half orcs, druids, bards, etc, don't really have that option.
I always thought this sort of thing was a given when it came such modifications. Some aspects will need to be created from scratch, others will end up being abandoned because the new system has something adequate to take its place; races and classes seem to be small details when it comes to updating a setting.
As Paizo has indicated, I believe maintaining the feel of the setting seems to be the difficult part of such an undertaking. To clarify my earlier statement, if WotC can preserve the atmosphere of the Eberron setting, Paizo can maintain the feel of Pathfinder Chronicles.
It's true that Pathfinder is the primary publication, and quite a successful one at that. The company has a lot invested in Pathfinder. That, in my opinion, is why it may be a wise choice to hold back. If only so they don't end up stuck with the 4th edition rules if those rules prove to not be successful. Personally I would proceed with the side of caution, perhaps not always a wise decision in business. It pays to take risks, but risks can also be costly. It comes down to what risks Paizo wants to take. They have a feel for the market that we don't have, and many of them are seeing it from both sides (publishers and consumers) as most are gamers too.
You make a few very good points, and Paizo has a difficult decision ahead of it. It'll be a little easier when they see the rules for 4E, but it will still be difficult.
I do ask the question: How much are Wizards going to meed overhaul their own rules for Eberron? Eberron, while breaking from the norm of 3.5 in many ways, is still decidedly 3.5 in classes and races. These elements are fundamentally different in 4th edition (as stated by many links, Enworld, and Wizards). So while they may not overhaul the setting to fit the rules, they may have to do a significant amount of rules tweaking to fit the setting. (Which from what I can tell Paizo will also have to do... if they ever get the rules, as you say).
That's what makes me think we're missing critical information. To us right now, such a change appears a monumental undertaking, requiring extensive and difficult modification and tweaking to make it work. WotC, on the other hand, indicates that they will be able to accomplish this task rather easily, without extensive changes to their setting.
Just to interject on the "Do the Gamemastery Modules first before trying Pathfinder" comments...
GameMastery is now fully Golarion. The modules just don't interconnect to each other like Pathinder AP's do, but they're still the same campaign setting.
I think it poses a risk to do one without the other.
As Paizo has indicated, I believe maintaining the feel of the setting seems to be the difficult part of such an undertaking. To clarify my earlier statement, if WotC can preserve the atmosphere of the Eberron setting, Paizo can maintain the feel of Pathfinder Chronicles.
I take your point.. I just want to remark Wizard claims it will maintain Eberron's atmosphere. That statement is entirely subjective to however they want to define "maintaining the atmosphere." Their idea of adherence to the setting could be a lot different than what you and I considering maintaining the feel.
With the disclaimer's made in my previous post, I remain skeptical. "Neat trick, now show me you can do it."
EDIT: Saw this posted right before I posted:
WotC, on the other hand, indicates that they will be able to accomplish this task rather easily, without extensive changes to their setting.
They say that, and I'm not calling them liars, but with the amount of change that was in that post/article that was linked to above.. they may have to show it, in order for it to be believed.
I always thought this sort of thing was a given when it came such modifications. Some aspects will need to be created from scratch, others will end up being abandoned because the new system has something adequate to take its place; races and classes seem to be small details when it comes to updating a setting.
Say they do. Then when PHB II or III comes out and Gnome, Half Orcs Bards and Barbarians are present. What if WotC has the bard and barb more powerful then Paizo's? Paizo looks like they make underpowered material. If WotC's is a toned down version of Wizard's, then Paizo looks like they make overpowered products. If some are overpowered and some underpowered, they could look like they're shotgunning it, like they have no idea what they're doing.