Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Right.
And I'm only laying this out as a hypothetical. I still think the best decision is to do the types of products we want to do _with_ 4.0 as the engine. I'm just running out of time for that option to be realistic, and I wanted to get a sense of where our readers stand on the issue.
--Erik
|
Right.
And I'm only laying this out as a hypothetical. I still think the best decision is to do the types of products we want to do _with_ 4.0 as the engine. I'm just running out of time for that option to be realistic, and I wanted to get a sense of where our readers stand on the issue.
--Erik
Of course, but we can dream, can't we? *grins*
As I think this thread has shown, in majority, no worries, we've got your backs.
Robert N. Emerson
Grand Master Delver CuDraoi at Delver's Square
Magister of Glen Ravin
The Emerson Papers
Ex Ignorantia Ad Sapientiam; E Luce Ad Tenebras
|
Most of my current gaming group are of a "why change?" mindset, though that could possibly be because most of them either just learned the game, or only switched from 2ed 4 years ago. Those of us who are gaming junkies, from what we've seen so far, view 4ed as almost an entirely new game, not just a revision, and while there may be some potential to use the online supplements we aren't convinced that the 'new' version holds any interest in us.
Over the past 4-5 years, I have seen Paizo hold more of my attention that WotC - while I buy the supplements, it's Dragon and Dungeon that has been fueling my campaigns the most, and I check this website much more frequently than I've been on the DnD site.
When 4ed comes out, I'll take a look at it, but I may also take the opportunity to maybe get some of my comrades to try RIFTS or other game system that I do have an interest in, but find less people wanting to try it. There are also many stories that I could still tell with my 3.5 library, and would not object to Pathfinder remaining 3.5 compatible.
Another idea, Eric, is with the extent of how much less volume Paizo needs to turn a profit that WotC, how feasible would it be to do Pathfinder in both 3.5 and 4ed? Perhaps, make a "v3.5" PDF available even if the company goes 4ed? Honestly, the quality of the Pathfinder issues so far would lead me to believe that a v3.5 supplement would only require replacement statblocks as opposed to an entirely different printing. As they say, "the story's the thing".
I have not the chance to read the 11 pages of responces and ideas so i will give you what i think and if this is already stated im going to try to go back and read this entire thread. But we will see.
First off I am very interested in this 3.75, i really dont see a problem with 3.5
Please explain the fixes you are thinking about
I will not be buying 4th ed but if Paizo continues to support 3.5 or 3.75 as long as its nothing major i will continue to purchase products from paizo
When i got my pathfinder subscription i told the rep that i want my subscription till the day it changes over to 4th ed, that still stands
What if Paizo took a lead from some of the superhero gaming indy companys and print path finder in both 4th ed and 3.5 (not sure if this is doable)
Paizo you are a great company and i wish you luck in what ever you do and if you do change over to 4th im sure i wont be buying anything for at least a few years having to do with DND directly
Contributor
|
I hate that we're even having to have this conversation. Near as I can figure, the only rationale for not getting 4th edition material to third party publishers under a new OGL (by January) is that they want Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and Eberron (or whatever in-house WOTC settings) to have no competition as available campaign settings when 4th edition comes out.To be fair, I'm pretty sure it's because WotC is utterly up to their eyeballs with the edition change. It's a massive amount of work on it's own, and on top of that coming up with a legal agreement to allow other companies to use your stuff that you will be bound to for years to come... well, that can't be done overnight.
They are just plain busy, not malicious. Erik Mona and Clark Peterson - both people who have directly talked to those making these decisions - have clearly stated here and at EN World that they believe it's clearly a matter of WotC being swamped. It doesn't stop both from stating publicly that they need the rules ASAP (and really they need to get public pressure going to keep this issue nearer the top of Ultra-High-Priority material that ALL needs to be done a month or two ago). But I have never heard either of them, or anyone else in the industry, accusing anyone at WotC of trying to stifle competition by withholding the SRD and licenses.
Hopefully this public pressure and the realities are the print industry will finally push things through at WotC.
So, don't assume they are maliciously trying to stifle competition and get all pissed at them. If you are going to be pissed at them, at least pick any of the other legitimately true reasons. :) The underlying theme I am seeing in most of the blogs posts over at WotC (well, other than "Boy, does 3rd edition suck. I'm glad I've been playing 4e for years!") is that they are overwhelmed with too much work in too little time. That's all. No anti-3rd party conspiracy.
I think that's naive.
|
|
I think that's naive.
If the spectrum of possibilities for the delay were a line, with anti-3e as one extreme and totally giving WotC the benefit of the doubt is the other extreme, then the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Most likely example of the truth:
WotC is busy as heck and other companies are not a priority to their thought and, thus, slips their mind.
It's not malicious, or conspiratorial, it's just part of being busy and working under the gun of getting things lined up, play-tested, and published.
So, Paizo and others have done what they can within channels, by talking with WotC, and outside of channels, by polling their consumer-base with options, both of which could get them the materials they need, ASAP, or give them the options they need to go forward with their business.
If WotC was truly against OGL, then they wouldn't have 4e in an OGL, which last I hear, from a lot of people I trust, as well as from WotC, it is a part of it.
So while some may be naive, I think your simple sentence is a bit over reaching with it's own implications, too.
*chuckles*
Yes, I tend to throw a lot of text at things and I cannot believe that I could write that much in response to such a small sentence.
Robert N. Emerson
Grand Master Delver CuDraoi at Delver's Square
Magister of Glen Ravin
The Emerson Papers
Ex Ignorantia Ad Sapientiam; E Luce Ad Tenebras
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I feel like I need to point out that no one here begrudges Wizards a single thing. Honestly, the idea that they would share the rules with other companies before they are released is a huge deal, and one all third-party companies really appreciate.
Wizards has been cool with us, and we like to think we've been cool with them. For five years, at least, we have had a very up-front relationship. I hope that that remains to be the case going forward, and I have every reason to expect that this will be so.
Their timelines do not currently match up with ours. _I_ cannot get the things I need to get done done in a single day, and I am not managing the relaunch of one of the best-known entertainment brands in history. I don't blame them for not getting us this stuff by now, and I'm not mad at them.
I am facing a ticking clock, and I'm forced to consider multiple options on where we might go from here. One of those options is sticking with 3.5, and I felt it important to ask our audience how they feel on the matter.
I am not trying to stir up "anti-4e" sentiment or resentment toward Wizards of the Coast.
We wish them the best success with 4e. A strong 4e will lead to a much stronger RPG market, which is good for all publishers.
--Erik
I love Paizo.
Nonetheless, I don't need yet another 3.x variant FRPG. I've already got AU/AE, IH, and Midnight, not to mention the scads of WotC product that I've barely even read. Not that I wouldn't check it out if you produced one, but it's simply not an option I would recommend. Honestly, an actual refusal to move to 4e on Paizo's part would probably make me stop buying your products. Maybe I'm alone (I doubt it), but I am really looking forward to 4e.
That said, I don't really understand the problem.
Barring any actual change to the OGL text, Paizo is going to have the same freedom to publish product that they do now.
As for the timing, so what? Why does it matter that you haven't seen an SRD yet? Paizo has already (IIRC) announced plans to released True20 and C&C stats for their Pathfinder products. If you can do that, why can't you release 4e stats, too?
I mean, seriously, hordes of people in this thread have said that it's the quality of Paizo's adventures, not the system they're tied to, that keeps them coming back. As long as Paizo makes a commitment to releasing 4e stats for upcoming products, what does it matter that said stats might not be released in time for GenCon '08?
Heck, I was planning on stopping my Pathfinder sub after RotRL ended to wait for 4e Paizo product. But if you guys commit to supporting the 3.5 entries in the line with 4e web enhancements, you'll have my subscription for life!
Ignoring 4e and producing a Pathfinder RPG will consign you to oblivion. Don't do it.
I'm fine with Paizo sticking with 3.5 or going with a 3.75 or whatever incarnation they want to put out, as long as it still feels like D&D to me. I'll still buy their stuff for certain. If they switch to 4E, I'll have to seriously consider how useful it will be to me after I get to peruse the rules on the SRD, considering I don't have to sign up with a monthly fee just to check it out. I'd want to reserve a potential switch to 4E AFTER seeing some rules. Based on what I've seen so far (and it's rather limited) I'm not too excited about it.
I wasn't sure I was going to enjoy the switch from 2E to 3E. Turns out I loved it. I was of the opinion that AD&D and 2E was seriously broken though. There were so many wonky mechanics and judgement decisions on little things that should have been standard, that it was hard to run. D20 and 3rd Edition fixed almost all of this. Is it possible that I love 4E as well? Yes, it's possible. Is it likely that it so drastically changes the game as to make it flow and remain flexible, while still retaining the same feel that I'd grown to love that I will no longer see 3.5 as a viable game? I can't see it happening. It will really have to blow me away to make me a customer.
I'm not that thrilled about 4.0 from what I have seen, and granted it hasn't been much, but is that for my lack of looking? Not at all. When 3.0 came out, I was excited because I could see how things were going to work. It made me want to buy the new books and new adventures and give this whole D20 thing a try. It looked as if most of the non-rules issues had been covered, yet it was still the game that I had grown up with. Now, I have to create a Gleemax account, sign up for stuff, blah blah blah to get the information I need to make an informed decision. Maybe I'm not looking that hard. Hell, I don't even know what the cost for such things are because I can't be bothered with WoTC at the moment. I kind of feel like they've blown me off in a way, and I couldn't care less.
That's thanks to Paizo. I was really dissapointed with the cancellation of Dungeon and Dragon magazines. I haven't missed them much with the advent of Pathfinder and Game Mastery to be honest.
In a few words, if Paizo wants to publish in 3.5/3.whatever until they decide it's no longer feasible, I'll be here to the end. If they switch to 4E, I'll have to decide if the game fits what I like the most about it.
3.5 is still fresh to me, and it's all that I need to do what I want to do with the game. Am I clamoring for 4E? Not at all. If I check it out, it will be for free through whatever nefarious means at my disposal before I decide on making a single 4E purchase. It has to blow 3.5 out of the water, like 3E did to 2E, for me to consider switching over to 4E. If not, I'll use what is at my disposal to play for a long long time without even skipping a beat.
I can only hope for 2 things:
1) Paizo does well with whatever they decide to do. I'm really impressed with what they've done for the game, how they deal with their customers, and the high quality products they produce.
2) The game in the end still feels like D&D. I don't play much else, for a reason. It's what I like.
Thanks for asking Paizo.
Go Red Sox!
If WotC was truly against OGL, then they wouldn't have 4e in an OGL, which last I hear, from a lot of people I trust, as well as from WotC, it is a part of it.
Im not sure it be that easy. Wizards may be the big boy but no OGL in 4th edition would cause a bigger fight for WOTC to get people to adapt. It would encourage far more direct competition.
The question also is how open is the new OGL. As far as I know that hasn't been said by anyone. Will wizards allow as free of an OGL if they plan to have classic creatures/races/classes in future expansions?
Also I dont think its that ridiclous to think wizards is holding back the OGL information. They want the initial splash for their product, not 3rd party. If it is because they are too buy to do it, then Im more nervous about 4e than before. Things should be ready at this point and finalized. Heck they want everyone to buy preview books in a month.
Slaughtering "sacred cows" that aren't broke feels to people like they are arbitrary decisions. I don't believe that they are "arbitrary", but they are still a bit weak on their explanations of "why". And without adequate explanation, it feels "arbitrary" because none of us were included on the decision making and the default "reason" ends up being "change for its own sake".
Which ones haven't they explained? They may be explanations you don't like -- certainly there are lots of people who don't like why WotC is redoing demons and devils -- but for the stuff they've officially announced (as opposed to rumored changes), they've pretty much stated their thinking as far as I can tell.
Since those changes will apparently include nixing the gnome, the bard and even illusionists from the PHB, please don't read this as me saying I'm exactly cheering the sacred cow slaughterfest. But their track record makes me believe that Races & Classes in December will explain their apparent desire to make me personally cry, by making even reimagining my gnome illusionist/bard nigh-impossible for months or even years after 4E first hits shelves.
SInce when did re-writing your product line become an industry standard? Since when did we as a customer base become so supid that we would discard $100's of dollars in working game product just to get the latest thing (what ever that is)? We play a game of immagination, any rules problems are either being dealt with by creative GM's or could be dealt with buy a supplementary pamplet. TSR can't attract new players (and sell product) to the game in numbers that sastisfy the bean counters so here is the great idea, assume that those that already own the game are chumps and force them to re-purchase it!
I'm out
As long as Paizo prints quality 3.5 product they have my business.
TSR can't attract new players (and sell product) to the game in numbers that sastisfy the bean counters so here is the great idea, assume that those that already own the game are chumps and force them to re-purchase it!
Damn you, TSR!
*shakes fist*
|
Which ones haven't they explained? They may not be explanations you don't like -- certainly there are lots of people who don't like why WotC is redoing demons and devils -- but for the stuff they've officially announced (as opposed to rumored changes), they've pretty much stated their thinking as far as I can tell.Since those changes will apparently include nixing the gnome, the bard and even illusionists from the PHB, please don't read this as me saying I'm exactly cheering the sacred cow slaughterfest. But their track record makes me believe that Races & Classes in December will explain their apparent desire to make me personally cry, by making even reimagining my gnome illusionist/bard nigh-impossible for months or even years after 4E first hits shelves.
There is a difference between an explanation and a justification. Many "explanations" like this is Kewl, or the old way sucked and you all hated it,or (my favorite) the tiefling art roxors, seem to qualify as explanations for some of Wizrds staffers.
Wizards has provided several of these "explanations", but few justifications that demonstrated logical planning and actual consideration of feedback from the fanbase. the "Trust us, you'll like it" ship sailed long ago for many of us.
Their justification is probably something that would not look good on a press release: "we believe that these changes will help us bring in a younger demographic that's used to MMORPGs, video games and collectible trading card games." It sounds more fun and PR friendly to say,"The tiefling art looked awesome, so we took another look at them, fleshed them out and made them a core race." It may still be the case that some of the designers were inspired by the artwork enough to sit down and think up a (hopefully) fresh take on tieflings that they felt was compelling, but the commercial consideration may have pushed it further to the foreground.
|
|
Im not sure it be that easy. Wizards may be the big boy but no OGL in 4th edition would cause a bigger fight for WOTC to get people to adapt. It would encourage far more direct competition.
The question also is how open is the new OGL. As far as I know that hasn't been said by anyone. Will wizards allow as free of an OGL if they plan to have classic creatures/races/classes in future expansions?
Oh, WotC would be more than able to weather ditching the OGL and quite probably increase their revenues, however I doubt that they would ever do it.
It is very good for them to have huge sales for the core books, even if people use them to play someone else's system, as it gives them an awesome bit of leverage in the industry.
Plus, it leads to other sales, within their own products, as people will look at their products since they are related to those books.
But, if WotC did ditch the OGL, totally, and went the standard route in the industry of having rules that support your settings, period, then they would make some bucks too.
While I know they would lose sales of those who didn't like the switch, they would make up for them in the customers that followed them, since those people commited to buying their core books, they commit to them being the only place that supports those books, so they are more likely to buy more books from them.
It'll never happen, but they could survive if they did and still probably be the big dog.
Also I dont think its that ridiclous to think wizards is holding back the OGL information. They want the initial splash for their product, not 3rd party. If it is because they are too buy to do it, then Im more nervous about 4e than before. Things should be ready at this point and finalized. Heck they want everyone to buy preview books in a month.
I never said it was ridiculous, I said it was highly improbably or unlikely that WotC was holding things back with malicious intent.
Paizo, as said by Erik and others, and WotC, as said by their folks, get along and are all good with each other.
If anyone would notice malice and corporate sabotage, then I think it would be these folks and I just don't see it. *shrugs*
We're in one of those happy times in the gaming industry when an old guard company is supportive of a the new vanguard and they all place nice with each other.
Gotta love it.
Now, as for the preview books, I think we're going to see a lot more story, concept, and "fluffy" in these books then we are rules, stats, and "crunch", since it just makes more sense to hook us with it now while the kinks are still worked out in the rules.
I ran a 3e playtest group, who was still playtesting it when a lot of the promo stuff was hitting the net and for MONTHS after the announcement of 3e.
Heck, we saw the actually PHB before it was released as our Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil had a B&W copy of the PHB with it.
But, in all my playtesting experience with WotC, there were still things being worked on within a few months, or so, of the book going to print and being released.
You'd be surprised, I think, how often that is the case in the RPG industry.
Most the book work is done with content, i.e. "fluff", as the rules are a lot easier to drop into their sections, once they're solid, as the "crunch" is less part of the layout and design of the presentation, while the "fluff" is core to it.
Robert N. Emerson
Grand Master Delver CuDraoi at Delver's Square
Magister of Glen Ravin
The Emerson Papers
Ex Ignorantia Ad Sapientiam; E Luce Ad Tenebras
|
|
Their justification is probably something that would not look good on a press release: "we believe that these changes will help us bring in a younger demographic that's used to MMORPGs, video games and collectible trading card games." It sounds more fun and PR friendly to say,"The tiefling art looked awesome, so we took another look at them, fleshed them out and made them a core race." It may still be the case that some of the designers were inspired by the artwork enough to sit down and think up a (hopefully) fresh take on tieflings that they felt was compelling, but the commercial consideration may have pushed it further to the foreground.
*grins*
If they're really aiming at the MMO crowd, especially the Warcraft folks, then some beyotches better be putting my gnomes back, braugh, because gnomes rock it!
*laughs*
Seriously, though, I think you're right, to some extent, on the motivations for some of the changes.
Robert N. Emerson
Grand Master Delver CuDraoi at Delver's Square
Magister of Glen Ravin
The Emerson Papers
Ex Ignorantia Ad Sapientiam; E Luce Ad Tenebras
I am not trying to stir up "anti-4e" sentiment or resentment toward Wizards of the Coast.We wish them the best success with 4e. A strong 4e will lead to a much stronger RPG market, which is good for all publishers.
--Erik
I do not believe that there is a vast endless sea of anti-4e/WotC-ism per se, so much as a very strong not-understanding of, from my perspective on the consumer side of the price tag, why 4e seems to be stumbling along rather than gliding as smoothly forward as two-E to 3-oh did. Given how the information available to the consumer thus far solidly indicates well over a calendar year of 'developement' prior to the announcement at this past GenCon (August).
No, I do not see the same scenario replaying as it did before, 7 years ago. It is my personal hope that 4e is a true improvement in the same vein as 3-oh was to AD&D 2nd ed. Obviously, however, I have my doubts, as do many others, which are reinforced by the comparatively sloppy introduction of the latest iteration, and specifically with the intential elimination of any degree of 'backwards compatability' that is presently understood. With the window for Paizo and others to join WITH them (rather than against them) at GenCon having apparently passed, that in turn adds more credence to - bluntly - thier marching orders being suspect.
[snip] What do you think? Assuming the third Pathfinder Adventure Path, Second Darkness, remains 3.5, will you stick around? I know most of you are as in the dark about fourth edition as we are and I understand that it's too early to make a serious call. But how is the 4.0 hype treating you these days? Do you plan to start up a new 4.0 campaign on day 1?
What do YOU want Paizo to do?
Thanks,
Erik Mona
I intend to run 3.5E games for a long time (14+ years). Currently I am running a "game mastery / dungeon magazine" campaign. Next will be Pathfinder 1, then Pathfinder 2, then...
As long as Paizo produces 3.5 (or 3.75) adventure paths, I will run them before I break into AOW & STAP (we finished SCAP a month ago). Then I have 2 other companies box sets to run.
What I would *really* like to see is a 3.75 cleanup of the 3.5 rules that Paizo could publish as a small book (like the Pathfinder books). I would buy 9 copies in a heartbeat (1 for each player, 1 for my grandson, and 2 for me).
If Paizo goes to 4E for the 3rd, or 4th or ... Pathfinder adventure path, as long as I could figure out a way to "convert" back to 3.5 I would continue to purchase them. If it was too difficult, at this time I really don't know what I would do.
I am not an anti-4E person. This is strictly a financial decision at this point. I have all the Complete Handbooks, several of the Races, and a lot of 3rd party material for 3.5E. My guys, while we *could* afford to buy all the books for a new edition, really do not want to spend the money on re-stocking everything for a new edition that could go out of service in another 5 years.
And Erik, ** THANK YOU ** for asking us our opinions.
-- david
Papa-DRB
Grognard
Ok, I finally gave up trying to read all of the post. You guys have been busy.
Erik,
For the record, I will not be going over to 4e. I like the Star Wars saga system and i am pretty sure 4e will be a decent game. Unfortunately, most of my players are grognards. We started out with 1e and we have changed through the years with every edition. Now most of them are married and have kids. The new gamers we have picked up are in grad school. This boils down to no money to rebuy the books in a new flavor.
While I plan to take a look at the game and decide if I want to buy, I don't expect to run a 4e game. Besides, a some of the ideas sound a lot like some of the stuff I can currently do with Iron Heroes, especially the way they are defining monster buy roles (reminds me of the monster classes in IH).
I will admit that I am not fond of the changes to the core D&D setting. However, I am not above slaying a sacred cow or two to make a home cooked setting. At the same time, I do like the great wheel for Planescape and I am not sure I can pull the same fell with the new rules. So, for now, that is one more reason for me to stay with 3.5e.
As to Pathfinder, I will likely get it even if you go 4e. I can mine it for ideas that I can convert to 3.5 D&D or Iron Heroes. Whatever happens, I wish you luck. I do not envy the position you are in.
My opinion may not count for much, as I'm not interested in Pathfinder (Small group used to campeghns that are strongly character driven makes prepublished adventures hold little value) and will probably not update if WoTC's attitude is indicative of the forthcoming product but if Paizo were to stick with 3.5 and publish there own core books, thus gaining the ability to also continue to produce more typical supliments, and (dare I dream?) there own, in house magazine (Perhaps catering to other RPGs as Dragon did in the late 80s) it strikes me that they would be in as good if not arguably better, a position as White Wolf, S.J. Games or indeed WoTC.
They would have a clear and present fan base, a readily identifiable game, and have by far more loyalty from customers. D&D in what ever the edition is not the only game in town, and there is clearly a profit to be made on games that are not it, and it would free them from the need to follow WoTC, I think that bears concidering.
after all, if Paizo suports 3.5 they will retain the loyalty of those who DO update to 4E, the two becoming esentaly separate, independent game lines, become the main sorce of new content to those who don't update. I dont see, in the short term how this can cost, and if, in the fullness of time it is viable to adjust they can always do so.
So Call it P.E. (Paizo Eddition) 3.75, 3.5 or 'Classic' theres still life in this edition, new is not always improved.
(My asumptions may be wrong, feel free to corect them. thank you)
|
Tough choice; like others have said, 4.0 has scant information to let us decide one way or the other. However, it's hard to see how an draft SRD can be given to you guys anytime soon, if they are still considering design decisions on subjects as magical items. However, I don't think the Pathfinder series is a sustainable model; it lacks the variety found in Dungeon, and as such is less value for the buyer (I know that the production values are awesome).
Maybe thinking outside the box? How about contacting a certain Wulfgang Baur?
|
|
I feel like I need to point out that no one here begrudges Wizards a single thing. Honestly, the idea that they would share the rules with other companies before they are released is a huge deal, and one all third-party companies really appreciate.
While I understand why Erik posted this message (and am convinced he truly believes it), WotC has done wrong by me. They have lied about the pending release of a new edition, talked circles around that edition's changes and reasons thereof, and adopted a marketing policy that will change D&D into a consumable, collectable commodity of virtual icons. And while many may argue that WotC has every right to pursue their business and bottom line exactly as they want to, I will be sending my money to Paizo, a company that works in the same industry, but has not lied to me, drastically changed the product I adore, and sought to exploit me lock, stock, and barrel for my dollars. Customer service wins out in the end, and while Wizards may have been generous and forthright with Paizo, they've certainly kept me in the dark.
I haven't seen the 4.0 OGL, and thus I do not know if it will be as flexible as the current one. I also do not know if it will be perpetual, but I do have my doubts. I think a lot of people at Wizards probably view that element of the license as a mistake (an from their perspective, they may be right)....
So let's say there is a 4.0 OGL. Will it open up fourth edition in perpetuity? Will it allow for the creation of "alternate Player's Handbooks"? Will it allow us the bredth of material allowed by the current version of the OGL?
...
That is quite a dillema for 3rd party publishers. As a DM, I feel I have open liscence to change the game as I see fit. If I want succubi to be Chaotic Evil demons, as a DM I just say succubi chaotic evil demons.
I hope you folks get the 4e rules soon, so you may be competetive at Gen Con next year.
I must say, If the publisher of Paizo decides that the 4e. rules doesn't work for them, then I will most likely reconsider purchasing 4e products.
But, in all my playtesting experience with WotC, there were still things being worked on within a few months, or so, of the book going to print and being released.
You'd be surprised, I think, how often that is the case in the RPG industry.
..
No, Ive seen the revisions/faqs/new editions. Doesn't suprise me in the least. However, its a sad thing that its okay to do. If it's really the fix theyve been working on for 2 years Id expect better, not the same rush again.
Also if your right (and you sound to have more first hand xp) how did 3rd party publishers get things out the same time as wizards when 3rd edition came out if we are hearing they cant for 4e?
Seems Eric earlier in this thread is implying we may have a downgrade in OGL in the works.
I hope you are right and WOTC is the bastion of goodness. All Ive seen lately is cancelling of Dungeon/Dragon for it seems poorly planned/designed internet substitute we still dont have a price tag for. Telling us we need a 4th edition so we can do things most good dms have been doing already. Bieng told the game is so much easier and smoother yet still needs simplifying. I cant trust them anymore in how they are doing the new edition due to poor PR. Maybe it is buisness as usual but leaves a foul taste in my mouth. Like I said hopefully Im just viewing it the wrong way.
|
|
Right.
And I'm only laying this out as a hypothetical. I still think the best decision is to do the types of products we want to do _with_ 4.0 as the engine. I'm just running out of time for that option to be realistic, and I wanted to get a sense of where our readers stand on the issue.
--Erik
So Erik, How is it feeling from you perspective???
|
|
Let me just say that being blunt online is something that is tough for me. I ramble on and on, and sometimes write offensive, outlandish statements. That being said, here is my current view of 4th and how I reacted to your post Erik.
I have been a DM for 3.5. Originally, the idea of running an adventure path other than one of my own design didn't appeal. As time went by, I read AoW and utterly fell in love with it. I have ran it twice, each time with amazing results. I have searched for old Greyhawk products, and recently bought an ebay sale for all of Savage Tide and even bought Shackled City.
Finding out that Dungeon and Dragon were going digital was the equivalent of losing part of the hobby. Finding out that 4th edition has been in creation for the past 8 years and finding out that I was lied to during that time was a slap in the face.
The information brought out on 4th may as well been shouted from a high speed vehicle. It's ambiguous junk at best. Constant chew material that I couldn't care about, followed up by no explanation for changes that honestly bother me (such as using squares for distance or movement, or target AC for saves).
So if Pathfinder #3 stays 3.5, or 3.75, I'll be happy. I'm still planning on playing 4th, and trying it out. I have tons of 3.5 stuff to use, thus I won't be DMing 4th. I'll even consider buying Pathfinder if it goes 4th, because I honestly like Paizo, and feel that they have the understanding of the customer and the industry.
On the idea that staying 3.5 may be tough... it will. I understand if you have to change to 4th, because this it your livelihood, and it is staying up to date. 3.5 was fun because it was dynamic.
Wow, first off I have to say that if you actually read all of these posts you are really hardcore for your customers.
My group wants to switch to 4th as soon as it comes out. I am not too keen on 4th mostly because I think they could find better revenue streams without changing edition. Also the interim releases they have right now are very crappy, such as the Dungeon Survival Guide, which is not much more than an overpriced Dragon article, or very good but an edition too late. Why did they not have the rules compendium released 2 years ago?
I also don't like in that some of the bios of the current designers for 4E, that they never played previous editions of D&D (Rob Heinsoo), or were pretty much moved over from designing that card game into RPGs.
Though there are some aspects I like about 4E, though they are mostly things that they have changed to be more like 2E that they shouldn't have changed in 3E. So it all appears very moot to me.
As for purchases, I will still probably buy Paizo adventures regardless of the game system behind it. I frequently buy adventures and convert them to D&D, or re-use modules from previous editions...even though they may not be balanced, oh horror..., so as long as Pathfinder has good story ideas, I'm in. Oh, and I also like the tactics part for monsters, and points at which they will retreat. That is very helpful.
I'm sorry to hear WotC is not cooperating. It sounds like they may be in over their heads over there. Oh well.
Cheers.
Halber
|
|
No, Ive seen the revisions/faqs/new editions. Doesn't suprise me in the least. However, its a sad thing that its okay to do. If it's really the fix theyve been working on for 2 years Id expect better, not the same rush again.
Well, the thing is, especially when it comes to any rules system for role-playing games, something being the product of years of work meant to fix problems and having holes in the rules are two seperate beasts.
Play-testing is there so that people who were not involved with the design and development of a system can kick the tires and find the problems; it is the same with editing a manuscript, in that an extra set of eyes, or in this case hundreds of eyes, couldn't hurt.
Also if your right (and you sound to have more first hand xp) how did 3rd party publishers get things out the same time as wizards when 3rd edition came out if we are hearing they cant for 4e?
Seems Eric earlier in this thread is implying we may have a downgrade in OGL in the works.
If I remember right, some of the publishers were also playtesters AND WotC called up some companies and brought them into the fold, so to speak.
Plus, we need to remember, at the time, very few of this companies had to worry about what they were currently doing with product lines, as 3e started product lines for a ton of these folks.
We'll see about the OGL, as I've heard that there are changes, but most do not see it as a bad thing, but more of a quality thing.
I've got to admit, though, I'm still a bit nervous/anxious about any changes to the OGL that are anything other than referring to the change in edition.
I hope you are right and WOTC is the bastion of goodness. All Ive seen lately is cancelling of Dungeon/Dragon for it seems poorly planned/designed internet substitute we still dont have a price tag for. Telling us we need a 4th edition so we can do things most good dms have been doing already. Bieng told the game is so much easier and smoother yet still needs simplifying. I cant trust them anymore in how they are doing the new edition due to poor PR. Maybe it is buisness as usual but leaves a foul taste in my mouth. Like I said hopefully Im just viewing it the wrong way.
Oh, I don't apply any morality to a corporation, one way or the other, as I always expect them to do what they feel is best for their property with secondary consideration toward me, at best, or tiertiary consideration, at worst.
I feel that they are considerate of their customers, but WotC does what they feel is best for themselves, their partent company, and its investors and no one should expect anything else.
Liking it, obviously, is a different issue and we're all allowed out feelings, I just don't agree with the demonizing aspect that happens, a lot, toward them. It's not like they're eating anyone's babies.
They're going to tell you that you need 4e, just like they said you needed 3e, 2nd Edition (be it revised, player's option, or whatever), AD&D and so forth, since they're a company who wants you to buy their products.
I don't think they're evil, malicious, or callous toword us, their compentition, or anyone else, I think they're just doing business.
If they were being evil, the OGL would be dead and they'd tie up other companies in court for as long as possibly trying to fight the OGL, even though they know they'd lose.
Now, if you want a company who I feel is a bit dickish, look at what Viacom did to White Wolf a decade or so ago with respects to the RPG Aeon.
Now that, that just sucked and was a baseless lawsuit that, at the time, White Wolf couldn't fight. They should have, as they would have won since you cannot own a commonly spelt word from the dictionary like Aeon (heck, a few religions use that word for a name, too), but they sued, WW folded, and the whole line was screwed by release changes, renaming stuff, et al.
Personally, I think Viacom was hoping for a payday to use the name and didn't expect the double-bird salute from WW when they sent out stickers and renamed the line.
Robert N. Emerson
Grand Master Delver CuDraoi at Delver's Square
Magister of Glen Ravin
The Emerson Papers
Ex Ignorantia Ad Sapientiam; E Luce Ad Tenebras
|
|
Folks,
(snip)
What do YOU want Paizo to do?
I want Paizo to succeed.
If 4e allows you the freedom to write the kind of adventures that we've come to expect from you (and from D&D), go fourth and I shall follow. If not, then it's not doing anybody any favors to convert.
While I'm on the fence hoping for 4e to impress me, I honestly don't need a new edition. Sure, a few rule revisions would be great to fix the less elegant parts of 3.x, but I still don't need a whole new edition to do that.
If you guys stay with 3.5, I'm in--not like anyone I game with gives a damn about 4e anyway. Besides, it'll be cheaper for me (which is always a good thing). :)
|
|
Wow, first off I have to say that if you actually read all of these posts you are really hardcore for your customers.
I bet they have read every one and that is why people love Paizo - they care about their customers as much as the game.
I'm sorry to hear WotC is not cooperating. It sounds like they may be in over their heads over there. Oh well.
We're trying to be careful about implying any kind of anti-WotC feelings. It is not that WotC is not cooperating as much as Paizo having deadlines that make the lack of information difficult to reconcile.
|
|
I bet they have read every one and that is why people love Paizo - they care about their customers as much as the game.
Yeah, overall Paizo is pretty damn cool and although I've had a couple shipments delayed, they've always taken care of me and made up for any possible issue.
Hands down, they're just awesome.
We're trying to be careful about implying any kind of anti-WotC feelings. It is not that WotC is not cooperating as much as Paizo having deadlines that make the lack of information difficult to reconcile.
Erik has been pretty clear and concise here, too.
I would say that he is working out his options more than lamenting anything about WotC.
It's actually a cool level of visibility, I think, in asking us what we the consumer would be okay with them doing, if they had to make this choice.
Robert N. Emerson
Grand Master Delver CuDraoi at Delver's Square
Magister of Glen Ravin
The Emerson Papers
Ex Ignorantia Ad Sapientiam; E Luce Ad Tenebras
I like paizo and i also want them to succeed, but the direction paizo takes in the future has no relevance to my personal gaming experience. i wasn't really sold on pathfinder or gamemastery, but i'm a huge fan of earlier work. i think the age of worms was one of the best things to happen to dnd for a while. so, i'll have to give 4.0 a read to determine if i'm going to switch. i don't really feel like i need to, however, because of the enormous amount of material i have for 3.5 (much of which was provided by paizo).
what i LOVE about paizo is their responsiveness to their customers. i mean, this thread alone speaks volumes for their level of customer service. i love that. wotc doesn't touch paizo in that regard. and as much as i've tried to stay out of 3.5/3.75/4.0 debates, i have to say that so far i freaking HATE the digital initiative. i always have problems logging on to the site, and successfully downloading a pdf does NOT fill the empty place in my heart that opening the mail box and seeing dragon/dungeon magazine filled.
You can easily write 3.5 adventures, and then put 4.0 version change docs on the web for monster stats and new feats/items/spells/classes that you introduce.
At the end of the day, we need the adventure idea, setting, maps, and characters. The stats are mutable.
Thats why people still want updated versions of old adventures, and why old favorite characters like Orcus are in high demand.
Agreed. I'll be buying Second Darkness because I'm excited to see what Paizo does with an Underdark campaign, period. Whether it's 3.5 or 4E makes no difference to me.
SInce when did re-writing your product line become an industry standard? Since when did we as a customer base become so supid that we would discard $100's of dollars in working game product just to get the latest thing (what ever that is)?
People became 'that stupid' around about 1979 when they dumped their OD&D material and bought in to AD&D. Vastly incompatable with what went before, new classes and races, news monsters, good lord it's a $12 hardback - three of them!!. People dropped OD&D like it was made out of plutonium because they could see that AD&D represented significant advances in game design and richer game play than beforehand. Hey, it even upped the power curve! Fighters have a d10 instead of a d6! A longsword does a d8 of damage instead of d6! God, what munchkinism.
Many - I'd even say most - other game lines have had new editions, sometimes very incompatable with previous editions. CoC is about the only one that comes to mind where you could run a 1st ed module with 6th ed characters and change little if nothing.
Very few of them, I would say, were done with an eye towards 'let's screw everyone because we know those rabid fanboys will buy any bit of crap we pump out', but rather 'We've learned so much in the past few years about game design and plus we've had thousands of letters from and hours of game time with our customers and they've told us - or we've realized - that X, Y and Z simply don't work well. But to change those, we'd need to revise the line'.
Liking it, obviously, is a different issue and we're all allowed out feelings, I just don't agree with the demonizing aspect that happens, a lot, toward them. It's not like they're eating anyone's babies
They do get the demonizing a bit, the problem with bieng the big boy. I do think they believe they have improved the game in 4e, and in their minds its the best way to play. The DI is the bigger question in my mind. It feels less planned out than it should, which causes me to doubt them more. I do think they could use a diffrent PR head.
I've got to admit, though, I'm still a bit nervous/anxious about any changes to the OGL that are anything other than referring to the change in edition.
My big worry. Im pretty confident 4e will work as well as 3.5. However, the loss of dungeon to me is mitigated by Pathfinder. I actually prefer Paizo's Pathfinder/Gamemastery even though it costs more. During 3.5 my group played heavily in Privateer's Iron Kingdoms and Monte Cook's Ptolus. The idea that these may not be possible in the new OGL is troubling. Once again it's the lack of info that is frustrating.
Well, the thing is, especially when it comes to any rules system for role-playing games, something being the product of years of work meant to fix problems and having holes in the rules are two seperate beasts.
Play-testing is there so that people who were not involved with the design and development of a system can kick the tires and find the problems; it is the same with editing a manuscript, in that an extra set of eyes, or in this case hundreds of eyes, couldn't hurt.
Fair enough. My key worry is what if there is a major flaw they missed. Could they really fix it in time? Minor ones I can see bieng edited, but major? Then again there probablly is no way to improve that aspect without bieng too far a head in development.
While I would love to follow Paizo down whatever road they wish to take, I feel that by trying to compete with 4e, (with a Pathfinder RPG/3.75 or by continuing to support 3.5) Paizo would end up losing the battle.
Even if 4e is only 'OK', it will be the one that most D&D players are playing for the foreseeable future, no matter what many posters claim on these and other message boards. Lots of people said they wouldn't switch from 2e to 3e back in 2000 or from 3.0 to 3.5 in 2003, but low and behold, most of them did. The same will be true for the 3.5 to 4e switch. Never mind that any new player to D&D will get 4e over any older edition.
So Paizo, keep the company afloat however you can until you can switch over to 4e. I for one will be there buying your products.
Trying to play chicken with the WotC driven semi-truck would be folly!
My recommendations, for what they're worth.
One - I would definitely plan in such a way that you can have long term commercial success in the event that WotC does NOT issue a 4e OGL or issues it under an unacceptable burden. They rescinded all of their licenses, which does not IMO mean clear sailing to openness. They may, they may not, but plan a publishing schedule that keeps you in business in either eventuality.
Two - if they do come out with a 4e OGL, I'd counsel going to it eventually - but no reason to rush. The fact is that product support is what'll drive 4e sales, just like available games drive console sales. If they launch at Gen Con but haven't prepped any other developers, then they'll be selling a console without games for a while. The hardcases and do-it-yourselfers might buy it, but especially this vaunted new target demographic of MMORPGers will want more of the work done for them, not less. So there'd be lots of people still using 3.5 stuff until a sufficient base of 4e comes available. No need to beat yourselves up about schedule as long as you're not behind everyone else.
Three - another variant D&D isn't the way to go IMO. As others have pointed out, all the other variants (Monte Cook, etc) have been entertaining diversions but that's it. You'd probably have more success branching to a very different game system rather than a "D&D 3.75"; y'all have enough juice to make a new fantasy game possibly work, and if you learned from WotC's mistakes and were open about it I'd bet a lot of the other guys (Green Ronin, etc) would rally around it.
In any event, good luck! Y'all have the most goodwill going for you inthe entire RPG field at the moment.
|
|
Fair enough. My key worry is what if there is a major flaw they missed. Could they really fix it in time? Minor ones I can see bieng edited, but major? Then again there probablly is no way to improve that aspect without bieng too far a head in development.
I think it would depend on how major, but most huge things never get past the initial development, especially experience designers and developers.
But, since it's just rules crunch and what not, I would think so long as the manuscript wasn't released to the printer, they should be able to fix the source document at anytime they want.
The one thing about pen-and-paper stuff, so long as it hasn't gone to the printer, they can fix it.
If you wanna try a true pain, try digital development on a large-scale, that is a huge pain.
Robert N. Emerson
Grand Master Delver CuDraoi at Delver's Square
Magister of Glen Ravin
The Emerson Papers
Ex Ignorantia Ad Sapientiam; E Luce Ad Tenebras
People became 'that stupid' around about 1979 when they dumped their OD&D material and bought in to AD&D. Vastly incompatable with what went before, new classes and races, news monsters, good lord it's a $12 hardback - three of them!!. People dropped OD&D like it was made out of plutonium because they could see that AD&D represented significant advances in game design and richer game play than beforehand. Hey, it even upped the power curve! Fighters have a d10 instead of a d6! A longsword does a d8 of damage instead of d6! God, what munchkinism.
Boy, am I glad I didn't dump my ODD stuff for ADD. But then, I still haven't ponied up the cash for a 3.5 PHB. My dogeared 3.0 is still working just fine ...
But your point is well taken. Gamers, as a rule, like the new shiny stuff.
|
|
Boy, am I glad I didn't dump my ODD stuff for ADD. But then, I still haven't ponied up the cash for a 3.5 PHB. My dogeared 3.0 is still working just fine ...
But your point is well taken. Gamers, as a rule, like the new shiny stuff.
I think we've been trained, over the years, to be early adapters, maybe it's the geek in us, but we always seem to jump on the shinies.
I bought GURPS Forth Edition when it came out, almost bought the Limited Edition version (I was laid off at the time), even though I know I would either rarely play it, or never play it.
Thus far, it's not been played by me, but I want to.
Anyhow, back on track, I think gamers have this aspect to them that makes them want to be amongst the first to do something; we adapt to new tech, we get the new toys, we stand in long lines to see movies, and so on and so forth.
Robert N. Emerson
Grand Master Delver CuDraoi at Delver's Square
Magister of Glen Ravin
The Emerson Papers
Ex Ignorantia Ad Sapientiam; E Luce Ad Tenebras
|
|
My personal situation is as follows:
I've been playing D&D, in one form or another, since 1979. That's 28 fantastic years that the game has given me. I have learned several different rule systems, and have enjoyed them all (but some more than others.) However, I'm getting older, and more set in my ways. Learning yet another rule system when the old one seems to work just fine seems to be more work than I want to put into my hobby. I am currently part of an outstanding gaming group, and they seem to like 3.5 just fine. Unless 4th ed is the coolest thing since sliced bread and warm puppies, we don't plan to convert.
So my position is that if you continue to publish in 3.5 forever, that would suit me and my group just fine. I will continue to purchase your products regardless, but I will most likely never run a 4th ed. campaign.
However, if you were to create your own game system that was based off of the 3.5 system, and the rules departure wasn't too far from what the rules are now, I think that my group could be pursuaded to change to your new system.
Like many other posters to these boards, my loyalty will remain with Paizo--even if you do convert to a game system (4th ed.) that my group will likely never play. However, my preference is that you continue to write in 3.5 or create your own system.
|
|
I'm still in the same boat I was a month or two ago: I will stick with Paizo & Pathfinder(Subscription)/Gamemastery(FLGS Purchases) as long as they continue to be 3.5 compatable.
I do not plan on converting to 4.0 immediately, if ever. I won't be buying 4.0 adventures, and will be cancelling my Pathfinder Subscription when (if) it changes over to 4.0. This is because WOTC has indicated that conversion between the two systems will be difficult at best. If Pathfinder series 3 is 3.5 I'll be happy.
A Pathfinder/Gamemastery version of D&D? Yeah, I'd buy it. If it was the same quality as Pathfinder has been so far, it would become my group's primary rule system(provided it was OGL/3.5 compatable or easily converted 3.5 material.) If it was supported in RPG Explorer (likely given your partnership with the developers), even better.
Undecided is a wonderful term to use.
Honestly, I like 3.5 D&D, and have zero intention of switching. I have been hurt in an odd way. I don't like the announcements (although the 4e warlock did look interesting, it didn't look interesting enough for me to buy a whole book, nor did the elves, but I digress).
Before I move on, I would like to say that I play many many games, from d6 systems (shadowrun), d10's (new AND old World of Darkness), and d20's (spycraft, Mutants & Masterminds, D&D, etc). I even play Earthdawn and classic battletech (the old rules) on occasion (great games). So, a fear of a new system isn't what I have, it's looking at the changes and going "is this better?" From what I see, none of the changes drastically improve the game enough for a new edition. And the "story" of D&D being rewritten, as well as the "we produced crap and you bought it for 30 years" vibe makes me upset (my words in quotes there). I love the campaign settings that were in 2e. Each catered to a different type of D&D.
I also love CRPGS. I remember the 2e and 3e Diablo conversions Wizards did, and I bought them. Why? They weren't exatly true D&D, but they were fun romps.
I love the S&S World of Warcraft RPG stuff, but it was done within the limitations of a NORMAL D20 system, not engineering the d20 system to work as a video game emulator (which is what I feel 4e is going to be). Does that make 4e inferior? No, but it does make me less apt to purchase it (I can make video game conversions on my own).
I play D&D. 3.5 feels like D&D. 4e does not to seem to feel that way to me. So, yes, I'd like to see Paizo stay 3.5-3.Paizo. I also realize that this will be a huge leap of faith for all of you. The reality is that 4e is probably going to be your business model, and I understand why.
/d
P.S. Thank you everyone at Paizo for being (and allowing) such candid and upfront things to be said here. I don't believe that this could be said enough.
|
|
It is an awesome thing that WotC would share their rules with other developers and an integral to a thriving market to "share" the wealth.
I like the fact that they have had and seem to have a good working relationship with Paizo and others. This makes me want to look into the products offered by these third party developers more.
I feel that the anti-4E sentiment is more due to the lack of quality coming from WotC lately and the fact that they are going so far away from "core" game worlds and rules. Though this maybe more profitable for them in the short term I do not think they will in fact win to many players away from the online gaming community. It has a different feel and a different draw that attracts those ho would otherwise not play many Pen & paper games.
Should Paizo wait and go 4E? Well that not only depends on the rules but the "flavor" of the game that WotC is releasing. Is the change going to actually be good or not? Well that depends if it frees up the game to be more adaptable to the market or pigeonholes it into a "generic" game that well quite frankly has been done before and done well by other developers.
Can you afford to wait for WotC to make up its collective mind about showing you the rules? Well from the hype it is hard to picture weather they have all the rules figured out yet or not.
Should you stay with the possibly "safe" route and use the 3.5 rules and hope that a ton of the market won’t abandon you when the new game "rocks" and everyone changes over.
Or can you go for another risk and release your own 3.75 version of the rules. While risky it may actually "make" the company with the rabid devotion some Paizo fans have. And why do we show this devotion, well simply for the fact that you take the time to ask us what we think.
All of these are very fundamental questions and we all thank you Erik for asking our opinions and trusting that we understand at least a little of what your company is going through.
My answer is simple I will keep purchasing Paizo products for the quality and the simple pleasure the game gives me. I can't tell you whether I will switch until I myself see the rules. I dislike what I have heard so far but I do know I have been wrong before, and may well like the new rules when they come out. I dislike digital format games and only use PDF versions of books I have for adjustments with house rules (the PDF is easier to copy and "fix" then just writing it out myself)
We are as much in the dark as you and may well change our opinions as time goes by please make whichever decision will be the best for Paizo and we will respectfully inform you of when changes need to be made or not to be made in our humble opinion.
I hope this helped and I hope I did not ramble on too much.